'Chaos benefits the Taliban': Why the war in Afghanistan is getting worse
Afghanistan has declared a national day of prayer after a string of attacks in Kabul left 130 people dead over the course of 10 days.
It's an escalation of tensions in a country that has already seen 17 years of conflict.
"It's very tense," journalist Jennifer Glasse told The Current's Anna Maria Tremonti from Kabul. "People are very nervous. People are very suspicious."
The attacks happened in areas of the city previously considered among the safest. The Taliban claimed an ambulance bomb attack in the city centre that killed 100 people, and a siege at the Hotel Intercontinental that killed 20.
But it was ISIS who claimed Monday's attack on a military academy where 11 soldiers died, showing the organization has a growing presence in Kabul.
Investigators in the capital today uncovered a cache of ISIS weapons and explosives — the biggest store they've found in the city so far.
Both the ambulance bomb and the attack on the hotel were very highly planned, said Glasse.
And these attacks are happening at a time when American forces have more than doubled the number of airstrikes against militant groups across the country.
The Taliban's long game
The U.S. strategy so far had been to force the Taliban into negotiating for peace through a show of military force, but President Donald Trump made a surprise statement Monday that there would be no talking with the Taliban.
Taliban targeted innocent Afghans, brave police in Kabul today. Our thoughts and prayers go to the victims, and first responders. We will not allow the Taliban to win!
—@realDonaldTrump"This chaos benefits the Taliban," said Glasse.
"They don't have to win. They simply have to not lose. If they can decrease confidence in the Afghan government, then that gives them a better bargaining stance if and when they ever decide to negotiate."
Aisha Ahmad, a political science assistant professor at University of Toronto, draws a line between the U.S. strategy and the series of attacks.
"These attacks are actually a response to what has been an aggressive U.S. strategy," Ahmad, who is also the director of the Islam and Global Affairs Initiative at the Munk School of Global Affairs, told Tremonti.
As a U.S. troop surge in insurgent-controlled areas has limited their power there, the Taliban's response has been to demonstrate their ability to attack behind the lines in secure areas, said Ahmad. She said this echoes a pattern around the world where jihadist groups stage large-scale attacks when they're losing territorial control.
Ahmad sees President Trump's message about not negotiating with the Taliban as more of the "same old rhetoric" that has been heard over the 17 years of this conflict. She pointed out that insurgent groups have finessed their techniques for surviving military surges by playing the long game.
- CBC News: Survivors of Afghanistan hotel attack recount ordeal
- CBC News: Taliban claims responsibility for bombing in which suicide bomber drove ambulance
"The players in the region have a different calendar than the United States or other international actors that don't see Afghanistan on the same timeline," said Ahmad.
"There will need to be a political resolution to this conflict," she said. "So saying that there is no space for peace talks essentially means that we're looking at a longer, continued stretch of war."
The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!
—@realDonaldTrumpPakistan's role in the conflict is complex and problematic, says Ahmad. But President Trump's threat via Twitter to cut aid to the country for offering "little help" in hunting "terrorists" in Afghanistan could send Pakistan looking for closer ties to China or Russia.
When all sides do finally sit down for negotiations, finding an honest broker for a peace negotiation who would be acceptable to all parties will be a challenge, said Ahmad.
"Certainly I don't think the United States or its allies are best positioned for such a thing," she said.
Canada's role
Canada officially ended its military mission in Afghanistan in March 2014. But Chris Kilford, a retired senior officer in the Canadian military who served in Afghanistan, would like to see Canada return to the country in a smaller capacity, for example, to train the military.
"I think we need to make a contribution because at this time we're really absent from the international scene," Kilford, a fellow at the Queen's University Centre for International and Defence Policy, told Tremonti.
"We have a moral responsibility to the Afghan people. And we have seen really positive changes [though] it may seem like a hopeless cause at times."
Kilford said he is puzzled by what he sees as the Trudeau government's unwillingness to be involved in international missions, even as it contributes aid to the military and police in Afghanistan.
"We seem reluctant to do the tough stuff that needs to be done," said Kilford.
"I really don't understand why this current government is really afraid, if I can use that word, to put us in these tough situations, when we should be there."
Listen to the full audio near the top of this page, where you can also share this article across email, Facebook, Twitter and other platforms.
This segment was produced by The Current's Willow Smith, Pacinthe Mattar and Julie Crysler.