Read on Twitter
1/ On civilians in Taliban rhetoric:
For well over a decade, Taliban rhetoric counted civilian govt employees, journalists, health & aid sector, even relatives & bystanders as enemies (recall claimed attacks like 2016 TOLO bus bombing, 2018 ambulance-carbomb on Chicken St, etc). https://twitter.com/Waheed_Omer/status/1320688511473848321
For well over a decade, Taliban rhetoric counted civilian govt employees, journalists, health & aid sector, even relatives & bystanders as enemies (recall claimed attacks like 2016 TOLO bus bombing, 2018 ambulance-carbomb on Chicken St, etc). https://twitter.com/Waheed_Omer/status/1320688511473848321
2/ By 2018, a few things had changed:
-IS-KP's capability to target Kabul had grown, primarily Hazara community but elsewhere too;
-Taliban began partial transition to unclaimed attacks. Perhaps began w/ staggering toll of 2017 German embassy bombing.
But attacks continued.
-IS-KP's capability to target Kabul had grown, primarily Hazara community but elsewhere too;
-Taliban began partial transition to unclaimed attacks. Perhaps began w/ staggering toll of 2017 German embassy bombing.
But attacks continued.
3/ As late as Sept 2019, Taliban openly claimed bombings around the country, including in Kabul, to deter civilians from voting.
But bombings in Kabul dropped last year, in part due to a Taliban shift: cities left alone (mostly), while countryside raged. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-peace-talks.html
But bombings in Kabul dropped last year, in part due to a Taliban shift: cities left alone (mostly), while countryside raged. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-peace-talks.html
4/ Last year, Taliban pulled away somewhat from its long-standing pattern of high-profile attacks in cities. They also stopped openly declaring many civilians guilty of collaboration with "foreign invaders" and "stooge" government.
5/ Civilians continued to be killed and injured by Taliban, as in years prior. Across the country, Taliban emplacement of IEDs harmed several thousand people.
But by 2019, Taliban had largely dropped its declarations of civilian guilt-by-association. https://unama.unmissions.org/afghanistan-10000-civilian-casualties-sixth-straight-year
But by 2019, Taliban had largely dropped its declarations of civilian guilt-by-association. https://unama.unmissions.org/afghanistan-10000-civilian-casualties-sixth-straight-year
6/ After US-Taliban agreement signed in Feb 2020, violence returned to terrible/normal high levels.
Narrative emerged: Taliban playing a double game with the US & the world, talking peace while wreaking havoc.
Fewer big attacks; Afghans still terrorized. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/23/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-attacks-kabul.html
Narrative emerged: Taliban playing a double game with the US & the world, talking peace while wreaking havoc.
Fewer big attacks; Afghans still terrorized. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/23/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-attacks-kabul.html
7/ Latest language from Taliban spokesman reverts back to historically nasty language on civilians. But why reverse their rhetoric now?
If Taliban were playing Americans for fools, simply using the peace process to get the US to withdraw ... why escalate now? Why risk that?
If Taliban were playing Americans for fools, simply using the peace process to get the US to withdraw ... why escalate now? Why risk that?
8/ This question is bigger than one Taliban statement (horrible as it is) justifying the killing of Afghan civilians. The same question goes for their entire offensive in Helmand.
If peace talks are the perfect way to get the Americans out, easily, why jam up the process?
If peace talks are the perfect way to get the Americans out, easily, why jam up the process?
9/ Few possibilities:
a) Some argue Taliban can't control their own forces. They say powerful Talibs in Helmand want war to continue.
(fine... but if Taliban plan is to wait for US to leave, resume the war & take Kabul by force ... why spoil that plan? Isn't that continued war?)
a) Some argue Taliban can't control their own forces. They say powerful Talibs in Helmand want war to continue.
(fine... but if Taliban plan is to wait for US to leave, resume the war & take Kabul by force ... why spoil that plan? Isn't that continued war?)
10/
b) Maybe Taliban leaders believe US military will leave Afghanistan no matter what, that they have free rein, that no Taliban action could possibly threaten Doha deal.
But if that were true, why was there not an immediate return to full-on fighting? Why not Helmand in March?
b) Maybe Taliban leaders believe US military will leave Afghanistan no matter what, that they have free rein, that no Taliban action could possibly threaten Doha deal.
But if that were true, why was there not an immediate return to full-on fighting? Why not Helmand in March?
11/ END
c) Most likely, Taliban have crept back to unrestrained fighting because of their organisational culture.
They may or may not have given peace talks a sincere exploration. But the more difficult talks appear, the more they will default to their military, insurgent aims.
c) Most likely, Taliban have crept back to unrestrained fighting because of their organisational culture.
They may or may not have given peace talks a sincere exploration. But the more difficult talks appear, the more they will default to their military, insurgent aims.
All that said, there are additional considerations likely prompting the Taliban’s insistence on its ideological righteousness: https://twitter.com/afghan_policy/status/1320576013512937472
