The Zawahiri Strike: Lessons from

Foreign Affairs

The Lessons from the Zawahiri Strike

Don’t believe the Taliban. Don’t trust the Taliban.

Photo by Maher Attar/Sygma via Getty Images

On July 31, the United States government announced that a successful drone-strike operation had killed Ayman al-Zawahiri, one of the architects of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the leader of the al-Qaeda terrorist group since the death of Osama bin Laden.

When the news broke about Zawahiri being killed in Afghanistan, many who wished that we hadn’t left immediately declared that it was proof of the Taliban’s once more involvement with al-Qaeda. They doubled down on the fact that American troops shouldn’t have been there. Zawahiri’s death in Afghanistan proves America doesn’t need to have troops on the ground in order to secure its national security and interests. Realists and restrainers need to be vigilant about Taliban relations with other terrorist groups in the area. However, the Taliban shouldn’t risk more destruction by being heavily involved in terrorists’ schemes. While policymakers should not trust the Taliban, they can trust them to follow their wishes. Even though the strike was successful, it does not mean that Americans will be able to end their war in Afghanistan. However, this is not an excuse for drone strikes.

President Joe Biden informed the nation of Zawahiri’s death in an address given from the White House balcony, telling the American people, “now justice has been delivered and this terrorist leader is no more.”

“I made the decision that after 20 years of war, the United States no longer needed thousands of boots on the ground in Afghanistan to protect America from terrorists who seek to do us harm,” Biden said. Biden stated that he had made the promise to Americans to continue conducting effective counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan. We have done exactly that .”

Though not “Got Her 2.0 yet, Zawahiri’s passing is a welcome victory. His approval ratings continue to decline due to high inflation and a porous frontier. This also supports one of Biden’s key reasons for pulling out U.S. soldiers from Afghanistan in August last year after 20 years of war. U.S. Over-the-horizon capabilities means that a presence on ground is no longer necessary to conduct counter-terrorism operations.

The operation that led to Zawahiri’s death was spearheaded by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). After receiving information that Zawahiri’s family had moved to Sherpur in Kabul’s capital, the CIA, along with other intelligence agencies, was able, for months, to find the safe house Zawahiri was hiding out in. Since the Taliban took over Kabul almost a year ago, Sherpur has been a favorite place for Taliban leaders. It was dominated prior to America’s withdrawal.

The safe house in which Zawahiri died was owned by an aide of Sirajuddin Haqqani (a senior Taliban official who is currently acting as Afghanistan’s interior minister and deputy chief of state).

See also  Social Conservatism is Closer to Sexual Neocons

Sirajuddin, son of the late commander of the insurgency during the anti-Soviet war and founder of the Taliban-allied Haqqani network Jalaluddin Haqqani, has led the Haqqani network since at least the death of his father in 2018, though most expect Sirajuddin took the reins well before that.

Although the Haqani Network has a strong association with Pakistan and specifically with the North Waziristan region to the southeast, Kabul, the network has been conducting cross-border operations in Kabul as well as Afghanistan for many years, thanks to the close relationship that the Haqqanis maintain with the Taliban.

The aforementioned U.S. official stated that Zawahiri, a senior Haqqani Taliban member, had moved into the area. This was “clearly in violation of the Doha accord .”

.”

The CIA followed Zawahiri’s movements to determine if they were authorized to execute the strike. A top U.S. official said that the president was given updates about the targets’ development throughout May and June. He also received a briefing on possible operations in the White House Situation Room, July 1, with CIA Director William Burns and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haynes, Jake Sullivan and other senior government officials. Biden ultimately gave his approval for the strike on July 25, and the CIA waited five days for the right opportunity to take Zawahiri out. Two Hellfire missiles reportedly rained down on the 71-year-old terrorist leader as he stood on the balcony of his Kabul residence on Sunday at 6: 18 a.m. local time in Kabul.

As it stands, the U.S. government does not believe that anyone else was involved in the attack, even Zawahiri family members or civilians.

In the immediate aftermath of the strike, Taliban forces quickly locked down the surrounding area, and a Taliban spokesman confirmed that a U.S. airstrike had been carried out and accused the U.S. of violating the Doha Agreement by striking a residential neighborhood in the country’s capital city. The Taliban spokesperson warned that “repeating such actions would damage the existing opportunities for increased cooperation.”

The Taliban stated that it knew nothing about Zawahiri’s arrival or residence in Kabul on August 2. This was despite Zawahiri being connected to senior Taliban officials.

It is not clear if this was an isolated Doha Agreement violation. Both sides made broad promises. The Taliban promised that it would not allow its members or other groups to attack the United States’ security. It also promised not to send a message to its members “threatening to undermine the security and security of America and its allies” and to not “refrain form using force or threat against Afghanistan’s territorial integrity, political independence, or to interfere in its internal affairs.”

Zawahiri’s presence at Afghan soil is a clear indication that al-Qaeda continues to be active in Afghanistan. There are also reports about al-Qaeda fighters returning from Afghanistan. The agreement was vague because of its broad language. The Taliban did promise not to make Afghanistan a refuge for terrorists who were seeking to harm America. However, they didn’t have to give up on their fellow jihadis. The political situation becomes more complicated when you consider that many al-Qaeda leaders swear allegiances to Haibatullah Akhundzada the Taliban leader.

See also  The death of Al Qaeda's leader renews the debate about hasty U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan

“Both sides have claimed that the other has violated the Doha agreement in relation to the al-Zawahiri strike, but the agreement uses vague enough language that allows for both sides to make their case,” Will Ruger, former Trump nominee for Ambassador to Afghanistan and president of the American Institute for Economic Research, told The American Conservative. The U.S. could claim the Taliban broke the host and cooperating terms of the agreement, while the Taliban claims the U.S. breached its promise to not use military force in Afghanistan .”

.

Ruger continued:

But regardless of who is right about what the parchment means and requires, U.S. national interests demand that we unilaterally, if necessary, strike high-value targets in countries that aren’t appropriately cooperative with our counterterrorism needs. The target’s value was so important, we decided to shoot it. We could also push the Taliban to change their behaviour vis-a-vis America and to support anti-American terrorist organizations.

Zawahiri, through his previous involvement in plotting the 9/11 terror attacks and current position as the terrorist group’s leader, has demonstrated both the intent and capability to attack the homeland. He was a valid target for the U.S. and they were justified in taking him out. A recent United Nations report indicates that al-Qaeda has been increasing in Afghanistan. This could have led to terrorist plots being hatched in Afghanistan. However, it is still unclear if these groups are targeting the U.S. and its allies. The Doha Agreement does not define what “cooperation” means between Taliban and any other group or individual that could threaten U.S. security. However, the possibility of a strike is possible despite the fact that there has been no Taliban cooperation with al-Qaeda.

But trusting the Taliban is not about being a victim to terrorist attacks on the U.S., but rather trusting their self-interest. Ruger stated that the Taliban still has the right to not provide refuge to terrorist groups, which could lead to them being “significantly complicit in any attack on the U.S.” and that he would seek a way to reduce its economic woes .”

While the Taliban might protest the strike, and U.S. violations alleged of the Doha agreement, Ruger thinks that the noise won’t be supported by any major action against the U.S. Ruger stated that al-Zawahiri’s presence in Afghanistan “has raised concerns in the U.S. over how risk-acceptant it is to relationships with individuals and groups such as Al Qaida and al-Zawahiri.”

Indeed. Zawahiri’s sudden death in Kabul raises serious questions about the willingness of the Taliban to take risks in order to pursue its interests. It isn’t evidence we shouldn’t re-intervene Afghanistan.

The bitter truth is the United States has lost Afghanistan. After being defeated from power for two decades, the Taliban managed to survive. Meanwhile, almost 2,500 members of the U.S. military lost their lives and more than 20,000 more were wounded in action for the sake of a nation-building project with the vague end goal of creating a Western-style democracy in Afghanistan–a form of government the people of that country clearly did not want.

See also  Rep. Mayra Flowers Blames AOC for Being Out of Touch and Calls for Biden Administration to Stop Southern Border Influx

The United States spent more than $2 trillion during the conflict. About $1.5 trillion went to actually fighting the war, $10 billion was spent on counternarcotics operations, $90 billion went to recruiting and training Afghanistan’s security forces, another $25 billion shelled out for the country’s economic development, and another $30 billion went to other various aid programs. According to Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, most of these programs were corrupt. The pockets of pseudowarlords were lined with taxpayer money for security force training and development funds. It’s no wonder that the security forces crumbled within days of the Taliban entering Kabul.

What makes people who long for Afghanistan to return believe it will be different this time around?

Subscribe Today

Get weekly emails in your inbox

“U.S. Ruger stated that withdrawal is still logical as the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan does not serve U.S. interests. We are better off having signed and ended the agreement. This strike strengthens both the arguments that the Americans and the supporters of withdrawing from Afghanistan made back then. The argument that intelligence or kinetic needs necessitated a continuation of boots on ground is severely undermined by our ability to successfully find and target al-Zawahiri. We must be vigilant for possible terrorist threats that may emanate from Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world. This requires intelligence, policing and maintaining over-the-horizon capabilities

However, it is more desirable to have troops on the ground than to use drone strikes, but there are obvious risks with an approach that looks beyond Afghanistan’s borders in order for U.S. security interests. The last drone strike carried out by the United States before the Zawahiri strike was on Aug. 29, 2021. U.S. Intelligence believed that the victim was part of ISIS-K and planned to attack Hamid Karzai International airport. The U.S. executed an aid worker as well as nine family members.

Ruger stated to TAC that the U.S. should “make sure we don’t get in a position where we are cavalier regarding drone strikes and create unintended negative consequences in the process.” This could lead us back to the Obama doctrine, which tries terror from the top while creating terrorists down below.

Read More

Previous post Pride and Prejudice
Next post Russia is a state sponsor of terror?