The Taliban resistance lives on in the Lion of Panjshir's son

Three years after the Taliban takeover, the images still haunt those who watched as the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan met a catastrophic end.

The president Ashraf Ghani and his close entourage fled to safety by private plane, while hours later young men would desperately cling to the wings of U.S. military aircraft taking off from Hamid Karzai International Airport. Several fell to their deaths or were flattened under the wheels of planes on the tarmac.

These images illustrate the betrayal felt by Afghans, not only toward the Americans who promised them the dream of democracy and prosperity for 20 years, but also toward their own leadership. Today, there is no appetite among the international community for another drawn-out war in Afghanistan, as violence rages in Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan, and Yemen. Engagement with the Taliban may be unpalatable but is seen as a serious option in several UN-brokered talks with the West, not to mention regional neighbors signing lucrative trade deals with the sanctioned and cash-strapped Taliban.

From an undisclosed location in Central Asia, Ahmad Massoud leads an armed opposition movement* against the Taliban under the banner of the the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan. The Iranian-educated and Sandhurst-trained son of a fallen Afghan hero, he was only 11-years-old when his father Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated by Al Qaeda operatives disguised as journalists on September 9, 2001. Many view the assassination of the iconic “Lion of Panjshir” as linked to the tragic events of 9/11 that followed two days later.

The rapid American response to remove the Taliban enablers of Al Qaeda led to a 20-year ill-fated experiment with Western democracy.

Ahmad Shah Massoud (1953-2001)

Ahmad Massoud

In an interview with Responsible Statecraft, Ahmad Massoud says he hasn't given up, nor should the international community, on liberating Afghans. He claims the NRF has 5,000 fighters and that they have been responsible for 207 attacks on the Taliban, with 30 of those in May and June this year. He wants the international community to support this armed resistance, he says, in order to force the Taliban to soften their stance on human rights issues and to hold elections.

“For us it is important for America to realize that there is still time; there is still an opportunity to pay attention to the situation in Afghanistan," he says. "It is not a costly project. We do not want boots on the ground. We do not want U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.”

Read the full interview here:

RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT: The world is marking the third year since the Taliban takeover. As leader of an armed Afghan opposition group, you’ve been in the press frequently and vowed to continue fighting “for the soul and future” of your nation “no matter the odds.” What are the greatest challenges facing the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan (NRF) today?

AHMAD MASSOUD: It is not only the NRF, unfortunately, it is my people and my country who are facing these challenges as a whole from the lack of attention to the lack of support, to no longer giving priority to the situation in Afghanistan, to ignoring the presence of terrorism in Afghanistan and many more things. We feel abandoned. We feel lonely. We feel not supported and we feel like we’ve been used as a geopolitical tool in geopolitical games.

RS: In the last few years, there appears to be a shift in the mood on the part of the international community which seems to be acquiescing to Taliban rule and restarting direct engagement. How do you see this?

AM: Once again this is all unfortunate, just as the original negotiations with the Taliban was a very naive policy. The withdrawal was a catastrophic policy. It appears Afghanistan is facing a series of bad policies, from negotiation to withdrawal and now possibly engagement. All of these things will lead to the consolidation of tyranny and to the consolidation of terrorism. I know that terrorism no longer plays a very important role in global decision making. In geopolitical games right now, it is all about the rise of China or the situation in Russia or the Russia-Ukraine war. However, the situation in Afghanistan is of utmost importance for us Afghans. We can see now – just as the rest of the world can see – that the Taliban have not changed and that all those claims about a so-called Taliban 2.0 were nothing but lies. For us, at least in the NRF, we keep trying to let the world know that the Afghan people deserve better than a policy of engagement with the Taliban. It is absurd to hope for any long-term change within the Taliban. We deserve a government that is inclusive and representative, one that does not oppress women, does not oppress minorities, and one that is elected by the people of Afghanistan. Even if the world doesn't think that we deserve it, we think we deserve it.

RS: You say the world appears to have changed its priorities. There is a focus on Ukraine, China, climate change. One would be forgiven for thinking Afghanistan has been forgotten. Do you believe the world has been tough enough in condemning the Taliban for its many transgressions on human rights?

AM: No, the world has not been tough enough with them, nor have they put any sort of meaningful sanctions on them. In fact, they have appeased them and supported them by giving them millions of dollars weekly which helps them maintain their tyrannical oppressive regime. The policy that the world seems to have taken right now regarding Afghanistan is a “wait and see” policy, which has very much helped it and encouraged it. Let me give you one example. According to the Taliban’s own numbers, they have roughly 200,000 to 250,000 soldiers. To feed and sustain these soldiers, they need around $220 million monthly. This would amount to almost $2.2 billion annually, but their annual domestic income is something like $3 billion – again, this is according to their own numbers. This means that they have only a couple of hundreds of millions of dollars to spare for the people of Afghanistan. How can they feed or sustain or govern a people on this budget? What this external support and aid is doing is basically helping them cover other costs, while the Taliban are spending most of their domestic income on suppressing people, keeping the regime intact and feeding their war machine.

RS: There are also trade deals and security agreements the Taliban have negotiated with its neighbors. Does that make your struggle even more difficult in terms of getting regional support?

AM: Regional countries are very concerned about the situation in Afghanistan. Just recently, there was another heinous attack in Pakistan. It is concretely evident that the masterminds of these attacks are in Afghanistan and they learned their methods in Afghanistan and have been encouraged by the Taliban’s success in Afghanistan. They even call themselves the Taliban of Pakistan. There is a group called Taliban of Tajikistan, which is Ansarullah. There's another one in Iran, and so on. Of course, these countries are very concerned about the situation in Afghanistan, and they have no choice but to engage with the Taliban to some extent to prevent further chaos within their own country.

RS: You have met with Taliban representatives in the past, but have you met with them recently? Where do you see the shortcomings of the current Taliban leaders?

AM: The last time I saw them was in January 2022. Let me be frank and clear here, all we are saying is that the continuation of the current situation and the way the Taliban are ruling, it is putting Afghanistan into a state of chaos. The Afghan people deserve to be able to elect their government. The Afghan people need to decide, and the Taliban should be able to see that the people of Afghanistan are completely absent from the decision-making process in the current regime. When I met them, the Taliban proposed that I become a part of their government, which I refused. I told them, “We need to get legitimacy from the people. For me, the most important thing is legitimacy.”

The Taliban told me, “You were against (former President) Ashraf Ghani, just be like that, but be in Kabul.” I said: “Very well and that’s what I want, but Ghani and I agreed on a legitimate process called elections, and a legitimate tool called a constitution. That constitution provided us with a road map through which we conducted the legitimate process of an election; one of you can become opposition, one can become government. Right now, you came with the battle of the gun.”

Besides, those people who stayed in Afghanistan, from [former President] Hamid Karzai to [former Foreign Minister] Dr Abdullah Abdullah, what leverage do they have? What voice do they have? There is no political leverage in Afghanistan. What I told the Taliban at the time was, “Let’s agree on a political process, on a legitimate process which leads to a legitimate government. If at the end of it, if it’s all you and the same regime, so be it, I am willing to give in to the will of the people of Afghanistan. However, if the people do not support you, we do not deserve to be in this current situation so I will keep fighting as long as either you realize this important factor, or we make you realize it.”

RS: You speak of elections and the will of the people. There’s been talk of the NRF establishing a government in exile. Is this in coordination with the government in exile announced in 2021 by former VP Amrullah Saleh. Can you clarify?

AM: Creating a government in exile is something that requires many sides and groups to come together to form a unit and represent all Afghans with integrity, and we will be working toward that goal. But we are still far away from that.

RS: Americans will soon mark the 23rd year since the attack on the United States by Al Qaeda on September 11. The period also marks the anniversary of your father’s assassination as well as the third anniversary of the chaotic U.S. departure from Afghanistan. Looking back, what has the U.S. intervention brought for Afghanistan?

AM: If America wanted to leave Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan would have actually thanked them for all their sacrifices and all the effort they put into the nation, and they would have welcomed it with an open heart and said goodbye. However, with regard to the catastrophic withdrawal under President Joe Biden, the people of Afghanistan viewed how we were handed to the Taliban as a betrayal. First there was a negotiation, then there was an agreement and then an unconditional withdrawal. So basically, what we felt, the people of Afghanistan, is that it was all a game. It was a betrayal. [The U.S.] elevated their enemy, the same enemy that they condemned for so long as terrorists. They said, “We never talk to terrorists. They are actors of evil. They're this and that.” Then they negotiated with them. They sat with them. They signed an agreement with them. In that agreement there is no mention of women's rights, freedom of speech, human rights, none of those things that they preached to us for 20 years. So Afghans see it as a betrayal. It was never about any of those values that they preached about.

RS: The U.S. elections are coming soon. What do you expect from a Harris administration, or a second Trump term?

AM: For us it is important for America to realize that there is still time; there is still an opportunity to pay attention to the situation in Afghanistan. It is not a costly project. We do not want boots on the ground. We do not want U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. My father never wanted that either. However, at the same time, we do not want this policy of appeasement to continue. If they do not want to fight the Taliban, then what they can do is put proper political pressure. They can put them under sanctions; their leaders should not be able to travel. Afghanistan should be able to have a no fly zone and they can politically and ethically support the opposition, the democratic forces of Afghanistan. If they cannot even do that, then at the very least they should support the women of Afghanistan. Kamala Harris as a woman herself, I hope she realizes the gravity; that Afghanistan is the only country in the whole world where women cannot go to school.

RS: Do you think that U.S. policy regarding Afghanistan will change depending on who wins? Do you think that Harris or Trump will have different policies?

AM: Unfortunately, my hopes are not very high but I do hold on to hope because America is a great nation with great people and great potential to do great things. But unfortunately, policy after policy in Afghanistan has been nothing but wrong. One thing I hope is for them to abandon this arrogance of thinking that they know better what's good for the people of Afghanistan and actually listen to Afghans for once.

RS: When we speak of Afghanistan today, we talk about security, we talk about human rights and women, but there's also a regional humanitarian disaster due to climate change and water scarcity. It's been argued that humanitarian assistance and water polices have been mismanaged and they can be used as a more effective tool for negotiation and leverage with the Taliban. What are your thoughts?

AM: On any of those issues, from climate change to the humanitarian file to the economic hardships or security concerns in Afghanistan, in the absence of a legitimate government backed by the people, nothing is possible. Take the humanitarian issue, for instance. Millions of us, we are in Pakistan and Iran due to the security concerns in Afghanistan, which is caused by the Taliban and their ideology. They have fled Afghanistan to Iran and now they are going to force them to either return to Afghanistan or to take some other drastic decisions. When you see these things, how do you solve it? So far it shows that the policy of appeasement and engagement with the Taliban over the last three years is not working. Again, in the absence of a legitimate government that has the respect and support of the Afghan people, none of those objectives can be achieved. The only objectives that can be achieved are those that foreign countries seek to achieve through the Taliban, but not something that would be beneficial to the people of Afghanistan.

RS: If water and humanitarian concerns will not have any leverage with the Taliban, how does their behavior change short of war?

AM: When America was requesting the Taliban to change and to allow girls to go to school or face consequences, [Supreme Leader] Hibatullah [Akhunzada] released a statement and actually said it in a Loya Jirga in Kabul about two years ago, that even if the Americans hit us with an atomic bomb, we will not change. So that’s the answer to all requests from the West for the Taliban to change and allow girls to go to school. He has clearly stated that no, we will stick to our way of life and nothing can change us. Second, everything that we expect the Taliban would care about, the lives of the people of Afghanistan, how many of them die, and how many of them live, we are very naive. They simply do not care what happens to average people.

RS: To be clear: Are you saying that, short of war, there are no other tools that the international community can use to modify their behavior?

AM: There are two tools. Regarding water, the Taliban do not see water as an issue at all. No country can use water as leverage because Afghanistan does not receive water from any country. Afghanistan is actually the high ground from where the water goes from Kunar to Pakistan and from Nimroz to Iran and others. So water can never be used as leverage on Taliban because it is actually Afghanistan that has the leverage over other countries.

We need to create leverage for the Taliban to be able to see they have no other choice but to change. I’ll give you two examples. First, in the time of my father who resisted against the Taliban for almost six years. After three years, Mullah Omar himself called my father. I was a witness in the room when they spoke. Mullah Omar said: “Ahmed Shah Massoud, let's end this war. This is an endless war. None of us can win and we are ready to compromise. I have three terms. First, improve your relationship with Pakistan. Second, accept me as a religious Amir, and I will leave everything for you in Kabul for you to run the government. And third I'm against the Shia ideology. I cannot accept it. And that ideology should die in Afghanistan.”

My father’s answer was first and foremost that the relationship with Pakistan is in the interest of the people of Afghanistan. “We never wanted to have a bad relationship, but they started the hostility,” he said. Second, regarding Mullah Omar ruling as a religious leader in Kandahar, and my father ruling in Kabul, he said “Let's hold elections and let people decide.” And lastly, on the matter of Shia, my father said: “They are part of this country. If you kill them, that's against every law in the world, religious or otherwise. If you send them away, it is the same thing. So I disagree with all three conditions, and unless you agree to an election, this war will not stop.”

So in this way, they actually compromised. The second example was in the time of Mr. Karzai after the American pressure on them became too much. They sent a messenger to Karzai and said they were ready to give up on everything if they could just be permitted to live peacefully. Unfortunately at that time Mr. Karzai did not want that to happen. Also at the Bonn conference, the Taliban very much wanted to attend, but back then the Americans didn't want them to appear. So my point is that with enough political and military pressure, the Taliban have shown in the past to compromise.

Why in later stages did they refuse to compromise? Because at that stage regional countries saw the NATO presence in Afghanistan as a strategic threat to them, so they were pushing the Taliban to continue the war. Right now that doesn't exist. The Taliban do not have the backing of other countries to push them to continue a war, but rather they would be pushed by regional countries to end it. So there is right now an opportunity with enough political and military pressure on the Taliban for them to compromise.

RS: So, without military force, either actual or threatened, there are no other tools which could cause the Taliban to compromise?

AM: Absolutely. Without the use of military force combined with political pressure. Imagine if the $70 million weekly wouldn’t come to Kabul. By now you would see the cracks within the Taliban regime, but unfortunately that is keeping it intact.

RS: What kind of reception have your ideas had in Washington?

AM: There are many Americans, from policymakers to army veterans, who listen to us and apologize for what happened. But the people of America have nothing to apologize for; they're a great nation. However, the policies of the current and previous administration have been catastrophic and that’s what I am criticizing. We also appreciate the sacrifices, all the effort and all the good things that happened in the past 20 years. Maybe there was corruption, maybe there was war, but girls could go to school and millions showed up for elections. Afghans were loving democracy. Even in April 2014, when President Obama spoke on TV, he said today is a day of triumph in Afghanistan as people showed up to vote despite the risk of terror attacks. It showed that everything we had invested in Afghanistan paid off. We had a lot of good things going on in Afghanistan as well. Freedom of speech, free press and women's rights and human rights. Overnight, we lost all of those things. So yes, there's a lot of interest in our cause in Washington, but unfortunately, for those calling the shots, Afghanistan is not a priority.

*Editor's Note: Article has been edited to reflect the plurality of armed anti-Taliban groups in Afghanistan today.