Follow us on social

2021-08-15t045757z_1_lynxmpeh7e020_rtroptp_4_afghanistan-conflict-scaled

No, Afghanistan has not become a 'staging ground for terrorists'

Thanks to the Washington Post blowing comments out of proportion, GOP critics of the withdrawal will use this exaggeration as a cudgel.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Republished with permission from the Nonzero Newsletter

“Afghanistan has become a terrorism staging ground again, leak reveals.”

To read that headline in the Washington Post, you might think that Afghanistan has become, well, a terrorism staging ground—a place from which actual terrorist attacks are launched, or at least a place where they’re orchestrated.

You might also think that this amounts to an indictment of President Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan—that, just as his critics had warned, turning Afghanistan over to the Taliban has turned it into a playground for anti-American terrorists. This impression is reinforced early in the Post piece, when its authors, Dan Lamothe and Joby Warrick, anticipate the GOP’s likely use of the documents their story is based on (which came from the Discord leaks): “The documents will almost certainly be used as a political cudgel by congressional Republicans and others still seething about the Biden administration’s chaotic management of the US exit from Afghanistan in August 2021.”

But, in truth, Afghanistan hasn’t become a “terrorism staging ground.” And, though GOP operatives may well use these documents as a cudgel, they’d probably never have thought to do that had the Washington Post not blown them out of proportion.

Here are some things you’ll learn if you read this entire story and read it carefully: 

1) The terrorists in question aren’t al Qaeda, whose alliance with the Taliban was the reason the US invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Indeed, we learn (in paragraph 28!) that the documents contain “no mention of an al-Qaeda resurgence there [in Afghanistan], something many counterterrorism experts had feared would happen following the US withdrawal.”

2) The terrorists in question are ISIS—sworn enemies of the Taliban. Indeed, several days after this piece was published, we learned that the Taliban had killed the ISIS leader who planned the horrific 2021 Kabul airport bombing, which killed 13 US service members and 170 Afghans. (Another reason to unfreeze all those funds that belong to the Afghan government: the Taliban is in an ongoing war with ISIS, and some of the money would presumably go to that cause.)

3) These ISIS terrorists in Afghanistan don’t seem to have been involved in any way in a single terrorist attack outside of Afghanistan since the US withdrawal—at least, there’s no mention of that in the piece. So then what does the Washington Post mean when it says Afghanistan is “a terrorism staging ground”? Well, for example, ISIS militants “weighed multiple retaliatory plots in response to Quran burnings by far-right activists in Sweden and the Netherlands. Those plots included calls for attacks on Swedish or Dutch diplomatic facilities in Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Russia, Turkey and other countries, the leaked documents said, though it does not appear any such strike was carried out.”

And it’s not clear if that “weighing” of “plots” was done by ISIS people in Afghanistan or in some other country. There is a repeated failure in this piece to be clear on what’s happening in Afghanistan and what’s happening elsewhere. Some plots are attributed specifically to ISIS militants outside of Afghanistan—in Iraq, for example—but often things are more ambiguous.

For example, read this paragraph:  

It’s unclear the extent to which the Afghan chapter coordinates its operations with the group’s central leadership, believed to be based in Syria, but the leaked documents highlight that components in those countries are looking to attack Western targets. The most worrisome reports detail efforts by the group to recruit technical experts online for terrorist attacks abroad.

So did the “efforts by the group” take place in Syria or Afghanistan or both? In any event, it appears that these efforts, like all the efforts mentioned in the documents, came to naught. Why? One likely reason is the fact that they are listed in the documents. In other words, they were on the radar screen of US intelligence. Lamothe and Warrick write (in paragraph 26!): “As a collection, the documents indicate that US intelligence agencies have succeeded repeatedly in intercepting the communications among Islamic State cells. Such intercepts appear to have led to the disruption of plans for kidnappings and small-arms attacks on government buildings in Europe.”

So, here’s one takeaway from the Post piece: The catastrophists were wrong! Withdrawal from Afghanistan hasn’t turned the country into a playground for anti-American terrorists. Biden officials who said the terrorism problem could be managed through assiduous intelligence gathering and the disruption of any plots thus uncovered were right. Or at least, it looks that way so far.

Then again, “Afghanistan hasn’t become a terrorist staging ground” is a pretty boring headline. So never mind.


A Taliban fighter looks on as he stands at the city of Ghazni, Afghanistan August 14, 2021. REUTERS/Stringer
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.