Taliban attacks peak as US eyes total exit, Afghan spy chief says

Afghan security police stand guard at a checkpoint in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, Wednesday, April 21, 2021. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 28 April 2021
Follow

Taliban attacks peak as US eyes total exit, Afghan spy chief says

  • He accuses insurgent group of maintaining ties with Al-Qaeda, breaching key condition of Qatar accord, which Taliban deny

KABUL: The Afghan Taliban have ramped up attacks in the country, with violence rising after US President Joe Biden’s announcement of the withdrawal of all American troops by Sept. 11, the head of Afghanistan’s intelligence agency said on Tuesday.

“The Taliban have increased their activities by 24 percent following the deal with the United States of America, and their attacks are at their peak since the announcement of the troop withdrawal by Mr. Joe Biden,” Ahmad Zia Saraj said during a press conference in Kabul.

He accused the Taliban of maintaining close ties with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, which breached a key part of the controversial deal they signed with the US in Doha, Qatar, more than a year ago.

“Despite the commitment they made in the deal … we see no sign showing the Taliban have distanced themselves from Al-Qaeda. On the contrary, we have sufficient proof that they are aiding Al-Qaeda to bring together again in Afghanistan those of its members who are in hiding in the region,” Saraj said.

The Qatar accord paved the way for the total exit of all US-led foreign troops from Afghanistan after months of intensive talks between the Taliban and the Trump administration, which excluded President Ashraf Ghani’s government.

Earlier this month, President Biden said that all US combat troops would leave Afghanistan by Sept. 11, instead of May 1, ending America’s longest war.

The removal of approximately 3,000 American troops coincides with the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, which led to the Taliban’s ouster in a US-led invasion the same year.

President Ghani said he respected the US decision to withdraw its forces, adding that Afghanistan’s military was “fully capable of defending its people and country.”

Saraj said that Kabul had no plans to free thousands of Taliban prisoners – as demanded by the insurgent group for the signing of the Qatar accord – as “many” of the 5,000 prisoners already released by the Afghan government “had returned to the battlefield.”

“Therefore, there isn’t any reason to release more Taliban prisoners. As a future strategy amid the departure of foreign troops, the government will concentrate on securing highways,” he said.

He said that with the arrests of more than 500 Daesh affiliates in recent months, which included dozens of children and women, the Afghan government had decimated the threat posed by the network in the region.

“They are now confined to small groups in cities and are trying to re-emerge and gain control of a geography which they can use, but we have reduced their ability for operating,” Saraj said.

“They are no longer the threat they used to be for the region … if, God forbid, we cannot manage [to crush them entirely] and other countries do not cooperate with us, then there is a possibility that they can turn themselves into a regional threat,” he said, adding that the Taliban had close “operational ties with Daesh,” too.

In comments to Arab News on Tuesday, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, denied Saraj’s allegations, saying that Kabul was merely “creating anxiety in the world, so it can persuade the occupying forces to keep its troops there further.”

“The Taliban have not increased their attacks, but were only responding to offensives” by President Ghani, whom Mujahid accused of trying to “sabotage international efforts on Afghan peace so he can stay in power longer.”

Experts said it was hard to tell how much of the claims by the two sides was “war propaganda.”

Commenting on the claim that former Taliban inmates had returned to the war front, Canada-based Afghan analyst Said Azam said: “Common sense would suggest that the released prisoners would naturally return to the battlefield. If not for any other reason, simply to feed their families because the government has failed to reintegrate or help them otherwise.”

Toreq Farhadi, a former government adviser, confirmed some of Saraj’s comments, but he noted that “the departure of the foreign troops would deprive Kabul of financial assets and resources earned while fighting the Taliban for so long.”

“Statistics are always a matter of interpretation, especially coming from the head of the Afghan agency, thirsty for more funding,” Farhadi told Arab News.

“The point he [Saraj] wants to prove is understood. Taliban are violent. Afghans and the world have unfortunately known this for the past two and a half decades. What we need to know now is what is he doing with the vast means already at his disposal to better protect Afghan civilians?” he said.

“This is important because, in the face of violence from both sides of the conflict, Afghans are leaving the country, creating a regional refugee crisis soon.”


Proposals on immigration enforcement flood into state legislatures, heightened by Minnesota action

Updated 16 January 2026
Follow

Proposals on immigration enforcement flood into state legislatures, heightened by Minnesota action

  • Oregon Democrats plan to introduce a bill to allow residents to sue federal officers for violating their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: As Democrats across the country propose state law changes to restrict federal immigration officers after the shooting death of a protester in Minneapolis, Tennessee Republicans introduced a package of bills Thursday backed by the White House that would enlist the full force of the state to support President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Momentum in Democratic-led states for the measures, some of them proposed for years, is growing as legislatures return to work following the killing of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer. But Republicans are pushing back, blaming protesters for impeding the enforcement of immigration laws.

Democratic bills seek to limit ICE

Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul wants New York to allow people to sue federal officers alleging violations of their constitutional rights. Another measure aims to keep immigration officers lacking judicial warrants out of schools, hospitals and houses of worship.
Oregon Democrats plan to introduce a bill to allow residents to sue federal officers for violating their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.
New Jersey’s Democrat-led Legislature passed three bills Monday that immigrant rights groups have long pushed for, including a measure prohibiting state law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy has until his last day in office Tuesday to sign or veto them.
California lawmakers are proposing to ban local and state law enforcement from taking second jobs with the Department of Homeland Security and make it a violation of state law when ICE officers make “indiscriminate” arrests around court appearances. Other measures are pending.
“Where you have government actions with no accountability, that is not true democracy,” Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco said at a news conference.
Democrats also push bills in red states
Democrats in Georgia introduced four Senate bills designed to limit immigration enforcement — a package unlikely to become law because Georgia’s conservative upper chamber is led by Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a close Trump ally. Democrats said it is still important to take a stand.
“Donald Trump has unleashed brutal aggression on our families and our communities across our country,” said state Sen. Sheikh Rahman, an immigrant from Bangladesh whose district in suburban Atlanta’s Gwinnett County is home to many immigrants.
Democrats in New Hampshire have proposed numerous measures seeking to limit federal immigration enforcement, but the state’s Republican majorities passed a new law taking effect this month that bans “sanctuary cities.”
Tennessee GOP works with White House on a response
The bills Tennessee Republicans are introducing appear to require government agencies to check the legal status of all residents before they can obtain public benefits; secure licenses for teaching, nursing and other professions; and get driver’s licenses or register their cars.
They also would include verifying K-12 students’ legal status, which appears to conflict with a US Supreme Court precedent. And they propose criminalizing illegal entry as a misdemeanor, a measure similar to several other states’ requirements, some of which are blocked in court.
“We’re going to do what we can to make sure that if you’re here illegally, we will have the data, we’ll have the transparency, and we’re not spending taxpayer dollars on you unless you’re in jail,” House Speaker Cameron Sexton said at a news conference Thursday.
Trump administration sues to stop laws
The Trump administration has opposed any effort to blunt ICE, including suing local governments whose “sanctuary” policies limit police interactions with federal officers.
States have broad power to regulate within their borders unless the US Constitution bars it, but many of these laws raise novel issues that courts will have to sort out, said Harrison Stark, senior counsel with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
“There’s not a super clear, concrete legal answer to a lot of these questions,” he said. “It’s almost guaranteed there will be federal litigation over a lot of these policies.”
That is already happening.
California in September was the first to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration officers, from covering their faces on duty. The Justice Department said its officers won’t comply and sued California, arguing that the laws threaten the safety of officers who are facing “unprecedented” harassment, doxing and violence.
The Justice Department also sued Illinois last month, challenging a law that bars federal civil arrests near courthouses, protects medical records and regulates how universities and day care centers manage information about immigration status. The Justice Department claims the law is unconstitutional and threatens federal officers’ safety.
Targeted states push back
Minnesota and Illinois, joined by their largest cities, sued the Trump administration this week. Minneapolis and Minnesota accuse the Republican administration of violating free speech rights by punishing a progressive state that favors Democrats and welcomes immigrants. Illinois and Chicago claim “Operation Midway Blitz” made residents afraid to leave their homes.
Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin accused Minnesota officials of ignoring public safety and called the Illinois lawsuit “baseless.”