Kabul blasts kill 35, test Afghan president's peace plan

[Lite Beer]

Kabul blasts kill 35, test Afghan president's peace plan
LYNNE O'DONNELL, Associated Press
AMIR SHAH, Associated Press

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Two massive attacks in Kabul on Friday, one near a government and military complex in a residential area and the other a suicide bombing outside a police academy, killed at least 35 people, sending the strongest message yet to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani that militants are still able to strike at his heavily fortified seat of power.

No one claimed responsibility for the attacks, though officials indicated they blamed the Taliban.

The implications of the assaults, however, undermine claims by security services and the government that the capital is immune from devastating attacks. They also pose a major challenge to Ghani, who has made the peace process with the Taliban the hallmark of his presidency since taking office last year.

In the evening hours, a suicide bomber dressed in a police uniform struck outside the gates of a police academy in Kabul, killing at least 20 recruits and wounding 24, Afghan officials said.

The attacker walked into a group of recruits waiting outside the academy and detonated his explosives-laden vest, said a police officer, who goes by the name of Mabubullah. Many Afghans use only one name. A security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters, said there were at least 24 wounded among the recruits.

Later on Friday evening, insurgents launched an attack on a NATO military base near Kabul's international airport, according to the coalition spokesman, Col. Brian Tribus. Two insurgents were killed in the assault, he added, without giving further details.

No one claimed responsibility for that attack and it was not immediately clear if there was any damage to the NATO base.

Earlier in the day, a massive truck bomb killed at least 15 people in a residential area of Kabul. That 1 a.m. blast flattened an entire city block and also wounded 240 people, officials said.

It was one of the largest ever in Kabul — a city of 4.5 million people — in terms of scale, flattening a city block and leaving a 10-meter (30-foot) crater in the ground.

The president's office said 47 women and 33 children were among the casualties in that attack. The president's deputy spokesman, Zafar Hashemi, said about 40 of the wounded would remain hospitalized. It was unknown how the attackers smuggled a large amount of explosives into the heavily guarded city.

Ghani threatened a rapid and forceful response to the bombing, saying it was aimed at diverting public attention from the Taliban's leadership struggle.

Last week, Afghan authorities announced the death Mullah Mohammad Omar, the one-eyed, secretive head of the Taliban who hosted Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaida in the years leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Mullah Omar had not been seen in public since fleeing over the border into Pakistan after the 2001 U.S.-led invasion that ousted the Taliban.

The Afghan intelligence agency said Mullah Omar had been dead for more than two years. The Taliban leadership confirmed his death — and even appointed a successor — but the revelation still sparked a leadership struggle among senior Taliban figures, raising concerns of a succession crisis that could splinter the group.

Pakistan, which wields significant influence over the insurgent group and which hosted the first round of landmark Afghan-Taliban peace talks last month, denied that Mullah Omar had died in Karachi. Pakistan's defense minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, repeated that denial in parliament on Friday.

The peace talks were indefinitely postponed following the announcement of Mullah Omar's death.

Ghani, freshly returned from medical treatment in Germany, visited the wounded from the early Friday attack in hospital as social media carried calls for blood donations

"We are still committed to peace. But we will respond to these sort of terrorist attacks with force and power," Ghani said in a statement, condemning the high civilian casualty count.

Zafar Hashemi, the president's deputy spokesman, blamed the Taliban and said the attackers aimed to "hide the cracks between their own factions and create terror."

At a White House briefing Friday, press secretary Josh Earnest said the U.S. "condemns in the strongest terms" the bombing in Kabul.

"This heinous attack demonstrates once again the ever-growing gulf between extremists and the people of Afghanistan and it certainly shows the blatant disregard for human life on the part of those extremists," Earnest said, adding that the Afghan people have endured much but remain resilient "even in the face of a brutal insurgency."

The Obama administration continues to urge the Taliban to heed Ghani's call for reconciliation and make peace with the government, Earnest also said.

The appointment of Mullah Omar's deputy, Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, to succeed him sparked protests from his brother and son, and appears to have led to serious rifts that internal committees are now trying to heal.

An Afghan security official — speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to give information to the media — said the Taliban had split into four factions, all with powerful political credentials and substantial armed followings.

He said that agents of Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency — believed to have sheltered the Taliban leadership since their regime was overthrown in a U.S.-led invasion in 2001 — were in Quetta to help the Taliban resolve the crisis.

Mullah Akhtar is believed to have led the group into informal and formal peace talks at the behest of Islamabad. Other contenders for the leadership might not be so open to a dialogue with the Afghan government, possibly believing that apparent success on the battlefield this year puts victory within sight.

"The peace talks are on ice for the moment until the Taliban can come up with a coherent political voice," said Graeme Smith, Afghanistan analyst with the International Crisis Group.

"The Afghan government has no choice but to wait for the leadership crisis to be resolved. There is no one to talk to right now. Peace negotiators need someone to talk to," he said.

___

Associated Press writers Humayoon Babur in Kabul, Afghanistan, Connie Cass in Washington and Munir Ahmed in Islamabad contributed to this report.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-08

[JockPieandBeans]

The president's office said 47 women and 33 children were among the casualties in that attack. The president's deputy spokesman, Zafar Hashemi, said about 40 of the wounded would remain hospitalized. It was unknown how the attackers smuggled a large amount of explosives into the heavily guarded city.

Still in denial.

A large % of the '' Guards '' are Taliban / Taliban supporters.

[Kerryd]

It just doesn't stop.

Civilian deaths this year are expected to reach their highest peak in the last 6 years. Last year (when most of NATO pulled out of Afghanistan) it is estimated that 1,686 civilians were killed and another 3,208 injured as a result of "the conflict" (car bombs, IEDs, shootings, etc).

So far this year they have attributed 1,592 deaths to the conflict and the year is barely half-over. An estimated 3,329 have been injured, surpassing the total for all of 2014 already.

(Note though that it would be really hard to verify the accuracy of those numbers as many agencies have a vested interest in making things seem to be better than they really are and therefore probably don't report any where near as many casualties as there really are.)

The Taliban showed their true colours (which was no big surprise) when they declared that they would keep on fighting even after all the "foreign troops" had left Afghanistan. In the beginning they had declared that they would fight until all the foreign troops had left the country. They were fighting to "liberate" the country from foreign occupation (yadda yadda yadda). The truth is they want to conquer the country (again) and install their own (very brutal) version of Islam on their own people (again).

People tend to forget (or just never actually realized it in the first place) that the Taliban were just as bad (or worse) than what ISIS/Daesh is now. The difference is that "ISIS" is getting a lot more press coverage now than the Taliban did when they ruled Afghanistan prior to the 2001 invasion. For example, the "international community" funded a brand new soccer stadium in Kabul. After it was built the Taliban used it for public executions. Burying women accused of adultery up to their necks at center field and then stoning them to death. Be-headings and cutting off hands and so on. The "international community" complained that they had built the stadium as a sign of friendship. The Taliban replied that they had never asked anyone to build the stadium and they'd use it however they felt like.

Of course, under the Taliban things like music, dancing and even kite flying were all banned (kite flying was almost the national sport at the time, especially as it was cheaper and easier than the actual national sport of Buzkashi which is like playing Polo but using a goat carcass instead of a mallet and ball).

Under the Taliban, literally anyone with a gun could be Judge, Jury and Executioner, all at the same moment. It was a license to do whatever one wanted to do, as long as they claimed it was done in the name of god. (Sound familiar ?)

Got that "rapey" urge ? No problem, find a girl, have your way with her and then accuse her of (pre-marital sex if she's unmarried or adultery if she is married) and then pretty much just shoot her dead on the spot. After all, it would take the testimony of 4 men to say she was raped to overcome her attacker's accusation so the chances of that happening are slim to none (especially as the men know they probably wouldn't live long enough to testify anyways). Like your neighbour's land/business ? Declare him to be (a spy, an infidel, an apostate, gay or a blasphemer), execute him and "confiscate" his property.

Need cash ? Coerce farmers into growing poppies and opium, then sell it for huge profit !

The Taliban claimed that opium production had dropped while they were in charge but the truth is they simply stopped reporting how much was being produced. That helped make them look better internationally and had the added advantage of driving up prices due to a (falsely) perceived shortage of product ! When the Americans were gearing up for the initial invasion of Afghanistan the Taliban threatened to "open the warehouses and flood the markets with cheap opium" thus proving that they were indeed involved in the drug trade (and still are of course).

That place will never become "peaceful" again until the people themselves finally get fed up and start stringing the Taliban (and everyone else) up from the lamp posts. They won't due that though as long as they remained chained to their religion and the instructions of their religious leaders. Those leaders will do whatever it takes to keep the population as uneducated and stupid as possible in order to maintain legions of followers to do their bidding. As we see around the world, it is much easier to brainwash stupid people and have them strap on a vest full of explosives, or drive a truck full of explosives, or put an explosive vest on a child so it can be remote detonated, than it is to do the same with educated people.

‘Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction’.

Blaise Pascal
French mathematician, physicist (1623 – 1662)

Edited August 8, 2015 by Kerryd

[JockPieandBeans]

^^^^

Nicely put.

Scottish Troops Deploy To Afghanistan

Troops from the Royal Highland Fusilliers, the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, have left their barracks to start their tour in Afghanistan.

More than 400 troops will deploy in two phases over the next eight months, in support of NATO personnel in Kabul and the Afghan National Army officer academy.

http://forces.tv/30218255

A damning indictment of the inability of the Afghan's to be trusted to do anything.

[Lissos]

The appointment of Mullah Omar's deputy, Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, to succeed him sparked protests from his brother and son, and appears to have led to serious rifts that internal committees are now trying to heal

We're back to 632 CE.

* Muhammad dies

* Mullah Omar dies.

Immediately, tension begins about leadership.

* Members of Muhammad's family believe it should be kept in the family / dynastic.

* Members of Mullah Omar's family believe it should be kept in the family / dynastic.

Others believed it should be meritocracy, and Abu Bakr is chosen by a group to lead. Muhammad appears not to have formally announced so before his death, but Muhammad having Bakr lead prayers is perceived to have been indication. Muhammad's admiration of Ali as a child and inference that he was destined to be a leader, was something opponents of Bakr saw as one green flag. Bitter rivalry begins over coming years, including some truly horrific battles. Check out the climax of the Battle of the Camel in 656 CE.

http://www.alim.org/library/biography/khalifa/content/KAL/53/3

Following Mullah Omar's death, his deputy is appointed as the new leader.

Others disagree with this decision, and time will tell.....

Crucially, the ever present squabble did not prevent victory by the Muslim armies though. Abu Bakr set out two years later to continue the invasion of Byzantine Christian Syria which Muhammad had begun a few years prior to his death, and it grew from there despite the bitter squabble about leadership.

Similarly, I don't think the Taliban squabble will signal the demise of their common aims. It could be argued that one major difference between the two periods of history is that the Taliban during their first phase of rule did not 'appear' to be seeking expansion beyond Afghanistan. Or at least, wasn't in a position to unlike Muhammad's day where various factors regarding Byzantine and Persia meant Muhammad had bookmarked achilles heels.

The Taliban in their first phase of rule tore up sealed roads, not a good move if you wanted to move 'out'. If they regain power, they now have a whole series of brand spanking new road surfacing kindly funded even from the EU and subsequently built with foreign expertise directing work.

[simple1]

@kerryd: With the benefit of hindsight what should NATO/ISAF have done differently to acheive a better outcome for today's Afghanistan?

[Kerryd]

And in other news, today it was reported in Deutsche Welle (using an AFP/AP feed I believe) that another Taliban suicide bomber on Saturday killed 22 members of a "rival" militia group (plus 10 civilians) in a northern province.

As well, in other parts of the country:

Authorities in the northern Badakhshan province say Taliban militiamen hanged a 27-year-old mother of three after accusing her of having extramarital sex.

In separate incidents, Taliban insurgents beheaded two local policemen and a civilian Saturday in Badakhshan. The victims had been accused of spying.

(Note that the victims had only been "accused" of wrong doings, not actually tried and sentenced, nor likely to have been given the chance to prove their innocence.)

What people in the West simply refuse to understand is that these people (the Afghans) have absolutely NO respect for anyone that shows signs of weakness. Westerners try to be "fair and compassionate" but to the Afghans they look like weaklings scared to get their hands dirty. They hide behind women and children and laugh because they know the West will (normally) be too scared to attack them. They use children as weapons because they know the West will be more horrified when a child is deliberately blown up than they will be over the dozens of innocent men and women that may also be killed in the attack.

The average Taliban foot-soldier may not be very smart or well trained, but their leadership is (little wonder considering where they get a lot of their support from). They know how to do things like pick up the weapons from fallen fighters and then claim those fighters to have been "innocent civilians". They know that dressing in women's clothing often means getting through check-points without being searched. (Back in '03-05 when I was in Kabul, one of my jobs was escorting staff to/from the airport. Spent a lot of time in the terminal waiting for flights and/or military convoys, chatting with the guards, trying hard to avoid having to use the toilets. I used to watch the guards at the entrance to the (civilian) terminal. A man shows up, the guards pat him down (but don't check his bags). A woman shows up, the guards would glance at her purse or inside an open bag, otherwise they'd just wave her through. Same for children. It would have been, and probably was, so easy to get anything you wanted onto a plane back then. That's not even considering the various groups that would go through the "side" entrance directly onto the tarmac, without going through any kind of security or Immigration checks at all !

They also know that murdering dozens of innocent men, women and children will sow fear into the hearts of their opponents much more effectively than weak-kneed propaganda or drawn-out fire-fights with troops (or rivals), especially when there's a chance of losing those fights if the enemy is of (near) equal size and firepower.

They say the Pen is mightier than the Sword. In Afghanistan they are more than happy to show you just how sharp their swords are and anyone armed with just a pen is a target.

[Lissos]

(Back in '03-05 when I was in Kabul, one of my jobs was escorting staff to/from the airport. Spent a lot of time in the terminal waiting for flights and/or military convoys, chatting with the guards, trying hard to avoid having to use the toilets. I used to watch the guards at the entrance to the (civilian) terminal. A man shows up, the guards pat him down (but don't check his bags). A woman shows up, the guards would glance at her purse or inside an open bag, otherwise they'd just wave her through. Same for children. It would have been, and probably was, so easy to get anything you wanted onto a plane back then. That's not even considering the various groups that would go through the "side" entrance directly onto the tarmac, without going through any kind of security or Immigration checks at all !

Agreed. Security in these countries is quite laughable (if it wasn't so serious in the fallout). Achilles heels are some of the things you mention, along with simply being given a poorly fitting hat, a gun and a shockingly low wage that invites corruption and security breaches via such a route.

As someone not involved in security, even I can see how poorly the concept manifests outside of the sphere of western professionals. Another achilles heel I've noticed is how easily they are distracted by friendly talk. I have run rings around security in places like Egypt, many times. Doors and fences literally open for me, into secure areas they really should not have let me into, for cups of tea with bedouin or armed police. lol. Granted, being foreign that can make them 'believe' they can stand down. Fatal, if groups like ISIS begin using caucasians posing as tourists.

Locals fare worse of course, admittedly.

I also noticed predictable patterns these security set. At 11pm they do a circuit of a place. At 11:30pm, they settle in for a cup of tea. Next day, identical. I hope el Sisi has improved security staff at sites now.

I have a photo somewhere that I took of a sleeping policeman (literally) at Medinat Habu in Egypt, by lying in a dusty gutter with his Ak47 resting up against a wall, away from him. Alert, weapon secured, primed to protect.

(facepalm)

I'm in Bali at the moment and was initially impressed to see security staff at a fancy hotel not far from my 'unfancy' accomodation going around vehicles wishing to drive into the under hotel parking area, going around the vehicle with one of those under vehicle mirrors on a trolley. Great, until I noticed he wasn't even looking at the mirror as he walked around it, but looking onto the back seat (facepalm). 'Security' at Malls in Bangkok make a cursory glance at a partially opened bag as the machine is ringing away. MRT security stop others, but smile and let me pass without a check.

No, 'check me' please.

The best I saw was at an airport in south asia (Dhaka I believe) where my flight consisted of a large amount of Hajis, a spectacle of ragged beards, white ribes and black veiled women. Prior to the gate was a wooden arch.

Next to the arch was a broken scan machine, but bags had to be oushed through it by hand (and pulled out the other side, by hand). The wooden arch also appeared to be nothing but a wooden frame but we had to walk through this arch anyway in a staggered fashion as if it still worked. Veiled Women lost patience, barged around the two men and they couldn't stop them but persisted in then checking out everyone else. Other veiled Women refused to be searched, which set angry husbands off in - "How dare you disregard my wife's honour" shouty antics (as cultural duties demanded). Overall it was in many ways that sermont on the mount scene from Life of Brian. "Right, say that one more time and I'll take you to the f*"'-+g cleaners!!" etc.

(facepalm).

[Kerryd]

@kerryd: With the benefit of hindsight what should NATO/ISAF have done differently to acheive a better outcome for today's Afghanistan?

The short answer (typed up hours after the wall of text below):

So why did the West fail in Afghanistan ?

They didn't win the "hearts and minds of the people". Instead they let the enemy do that.

They didn't want to get their hands dirty. Instead they allowed the "enemy" to dictate the rules.

They didn't ensure an effective government was in charge. Instead they tried letting locals do things the "local" way.

One thing I think they (NATO/ISAF) did wrong (or could have done better) was in not convincing the people that the Taliban were primarily criminals. I think the Taliban were able to get their message out to more people, more effectively, than the West did and as a result the average Afghan was more likely to see things through a Taliban viewpoint. That is why, despite the numerous bloody attacks the Taliban did to their own people, despite the thousands of innocent Afghans they murdered, the people never (apparently) condemned them or rose up against them except in a few small, not very well publicized cases. (Basically the Taliban message was that they were fighting to rid the country of the foreign invaders - conveniently ignoring that it was their own sheltering of foreign terrorists that lead to the invasion in the first place. They were able to drive that message home using their religion and by using terror on their own people.)

The West should have been papering the streets and flooding the airwaves every time the Taliban bombed a civilian market or murdered innocent Afghans. They should have had (local) voices in the mosques condemning those atrocities (though that would have been a dangerous task in itself). They should have publicized arrest warrants and Wanted posters for the criminals.

They would have had to use locals (government, military, police, religious leaders) to do that so that everything looked like it was coming from Afghans, not foreigners. (Although those groups themselves were a large part of the problem. The government was seen as corrupt (rightfully) and as Western puppets, the military was "heavy handed" and ineffective, the police were corrupt and ineffective and the religious leaders were more likely to support the Taliban than the government.)

The West also failed at disarming the public (I don't think they really even tried honestly). In Croatia, in the sectors under UN Control, the military was in control. The police weren't even allowed to carry weapons at the time. We had full authority to stop and search anyone, at any time. Individuals, vehicles, buildings - no warrants, no BS. People caught with weapons would be handed over to the local police (who would often just let them go out the back door). We even set up an operation and raided the homes of a number of police who we suspected were hoarding/transporting weapons and giving them out to various agitators and militias. The first vehicle I ever searched (for real, in a war zone) had grenades in the glove box ! By the end of our 6 month tour we had confiscated more than 4 sea containers full of weapons, and disposed of tons of ammunition (plus grenades, mortar shells, etc). (As a result, we had one of the quietest sectors in the region. There were still shootings, bombings and fighting going on in places but our area was far better off than the other 3 sectors.)

But in Afghanistan there was too much concern over "offending the locals". There was a hue and a cry over using dogs (because of course, some Muslims think dogs are dirty - awful lot of dogs in Afghanistan for some reason though). They didn't like the "Surprise ! We're here to search your house" visits in the middle of the night (of course most were too stupid to realize that we have night vision and thermal scopes and other hi-tech toys that let us know who is doing what and who were prime suspects" for surprise raids). Karzai effectively put an end to the surprise night raids (probably because they were too effective).

The government. I think they screwed the pooch on that as well. They installed Karzai thinking he'd be "western friendly" but from a dominant Pashtun tribe, so he'd have "local cred". Naturally the Taliban (and pretty much everyone else) saw him as nothing but an American puppet. The West tried to use locals to run the government, but they were so inept and corrupt that they were essentially useless. Because all the various warlords and militias still had all their weapons, the government was forced to include them in their dealings (or make whatever concessions they demanded) for fear they'd withdraw their support and turn on them (a common Afghan trait). Karzai was the one who stopped the West's plans to eliminate the poppy crops because he was worried about the economic effect on the people (not about the huge amounts of opium flowing into Europe). (Nothing to do with one of his half-brothers being heavily involved in the poppy trade himself at the time (before being assassinated).

One of his brothers was running the Kabul Bank and using it like his personal piggy bank (he bought shares in the bank, using money he borrowed from the bank, with those shares he was buying as collateral) ! He literally became one of the largest shareholders in the bank without having to spend a penny of his own money ! He also siphoned off money to buy luxury condos and villas in Dubai. Every time someone tried to do an investigation into the rampant corruption being done by his family members, Karzai would shut it down, then blame the West. He didn't like that we would contract directly with various companies or "entities" to do various projects. He wanted all contracting (and all $$) to go through him (so he could siphon off a percentage and then dole out the rest to whomever he favoured or wanted to pay off).

What ended up happening is that they had a government that no one respected, that had little (or no control) outside of Kabul, no real economy of any kind (95% of their entire budget comes from Western funding) and no power to make any changes at all. They needed a fierce tiger of a government and ended up with an emaciated, toothless soi dog instead.

Look at what the US managed to accomplish with Germany and Japan after the war. 2 of the strongest economies on the planet right now, Between 1951 and 1960 Germany's Gross National Product rose by an average of 7.3% a year. In Japan, by 1960 the US's assistance dropped from a high of 7% of Japan's GNP to less than 1%. Less than 15 years after the war ended and those 2 countries were pretty much self-sufficient (and for the most part, independent although foreign troops remained on their soil). (Compare that to Afghanistan where, 14 years after the invasion, almost their entire economy comes from foreign funding, grants and donations.)

Of course there are huge differences between the postwar Germans/Japanese compared to the Afghans. The situation in Afghanistan is more complicated due to the lack of education, the decades of conflict and the influence their religion exerts over them. In Afghanistan it seems that the West (predominately the US) handed the reins of government over to the Afghans and said "have at it while we concentrate (almost entirely) on fighting the Taliban". I got the impression that the West was trying very hard to not interfere (directly) in the government, despite the obvious problems it was having. The West was in the country to do it's own thing and the Afghan government was left with almost no money, no power and no authority to do much of anything. The government couldn't even deal with the rampant corruption within it's own ranks.

(It was at this point that I finally typed the 3 line answer to the question at the top of this post, over 2 hours after starting to reply to it. Did get to read some interesting historical articles in the process though so it wasn't totally wasted time !)

[simple1]

@kerryd: A sincere thanks for the time invested for your response - much better than the rants that pervade TV.