How US drone strike, political betrayal drove aging Afghan militant closer to Daesh

1 / 3
Hajji Amanullah, left, with some of his men in Shaygal district, Kunar province. (Courtesy Fazelminallah Qazizai)
Updated 02 March 2018
Follow

How US drone strike, political betrayal drove aging Afghan militant closer to Daesh

KUNAR, Afghanistan: Hajji Amanullah had been walking through the night, hoping to use the cover of darkness to shake off the Americans hunting him down, when he again heard the familiar low-pitched hum of the drone that seemed to watch his every move. It was early on the morning of June 24, 2017, near the end of Ramadan, and for the past few days the unmanned aerial vehicle had been doggedly following the insurgent commander as he traversed the boulder-strewn peaks and valleys that form the district of Shaygal, in eastern Afghanistan.
Almost 180 coalition troops had been killed in the surrounding province of Kunar since the war began in 2001 and Amanullah was the architect of much of the bloodshed. As a senior figure in the Islamist group Hizb-e Islami (the Islamic Party), he had clashed with the Americans dozens of times. Only now did he realize that this was their moment of revenge.
He had been using a torch to light a path through the rugged terrain and just as he recognized his mistake and paused to switch it off, a loud tearing sound split the sky. The first missile hit the ground in front of him, throwing him to the floor. The second landed closer, sending dirt, rocks and branches into the air. Stunned, and with his left wrist and left ear bleeding, he recited his last rites, convinced another missile was on its way. But to his amazement there were no more explosions. After several minutes villagers arrived on the scene and took him to a cluster of nearby houses. There, he began to recuperate and plot his next move.
Recounting the details of the drone strike in an exclusive interview with Arab News recently, Amanullah blamed himself for being too casual with his own security and underestimating the Americans’ firepower.
“If your enemy is a fox, you should think of it as a lion,” he said, repeating an old proverb.
Amanullah’s previously untold story offers a fascinating, and sobering, glimpse into the insurgent side of the war in Afghanistan, as US policymakers continue their search for a decisive breakthrough that will turn around the conflict. It is a tale of missed opportunities and shifting alliances; the horrors of combat and the perils of making peace with an intractable enemy. Ultimately, it is also the story of the changing face of radicalism in this country — a land that nurtured Al-Qaeda and that is now becoming an increasingly important sanctuary for Daesh.
Aged 50 and sporting a long white beard, Amanullah comes from the La Hussein valley in Shaygal, a picturesque area of persimmon and walnut trees. He belongs to the Shinwari tribe, one of eastern Afghanistan’s most prominent Pashtun groups, and was born into a typically large family, with eight brothers and three sisters. He was just 12-years-old when he joined Hizb-e Islami in its guerrilla war against local Marxists in the late 1970s.
 

Hizb, as it is commonly known by Afghans, was influenced by the ideas of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and led by a charismatic and ruthless former engineering student, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who Aman revered. Together, they vowed to wage armed jihad until the country was governed by a radical interpretation of Islamic law. The party went on to become the most powerful Mujahedeen faction in the 1979-1989 war against Soviet occupation, when it received the largest share of covert US arms supplies funnelled to the resistance through Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency. At the same time, Hekmatyar mentored militants from across Asia and the Middle East, training them to launch insurrections in their home countries after the Soviet withdrawal.
But when the Russians left Afghanistan and victory seemed within reach, Hizb was outflanked by rival Mujahedeen parties and Kabul descended into a savage civil war that killed tens of thousands of people, ultimately giving rise to the Taliban. Hekmatyar, one of the conflict’s main protagonists, fled to Iran before returning to Afghanistan in 2002 to launch a jihad against the America-led occupation.
For many of Hekmatyar’s supporters this new guerrilla campaign was a step too far and, exhausted by years of conflict, they laid down their arms to join the democratic process in Kabul, forming their own factions of Hizb. Amanullah was one of the few who stood by Hekmatyar and the insurgent wing of the party, known in US-military parlance as HIG. Before he had a chance to fire a shot in anger, however, American forces arrested him in the eastern province of Nangarhar while he was trying to visit a friend in jail. The experience only hardened his resolve. Released after five months, he returned to Shaygal and resumed his insurgency.
By his own account, Amanullah first confronted US soldiers in battle in late 2002, digging up a rocket-propelled grenade launcher he had hidden in a cemetery and ambushing a military convoy. Already well known in local rebel circles, his reputation grew in the years that followed as he led dozens of raids against the Americans. He rose through Hizb’s ranks, eventually becoming head of its military committee — the section of the party tasked with organizing guerrilla operations across the country. His growing influence was most keenly felt in Kunar, where American troops stationed in remote outposts struggled to withstand frequent assaults from radical fighters largely drawn from a local population hostile to outsiders.
As the war dragged on, Hizb conducted several high-profile attacks in Kabul, including one by a female suicide bomber in September 2012 that killed at least 12 people — eight of them South African employees of a chartered aviation company. But Hekmatyar’s faction remained militarily weak compared with the Taliban and, after years of behind the scenes talks, it signed a peace agreement with the Afghan government in September 2016, less than two months before Donald Trump’s election as US president. It seemed like one of the most significant political breakthroughs Afghanistan had experienced in years.
Even then, however, there were warning signs that the deal would give rise to a new wave of radicalism. A small band of Daesh fighters had already spent several months living under Amanullah’s protection in Shaygal, impressing him with their adherence to a violent and austere way of life that they claimed mirrored the conduct of Islam’s earliest apostles. He sheltered them in accordance with Pashtun honor codes but opted to keep a prudent distance from their daily operations while he waited to see how their jihad progressed.
The more time that passed, the more troubled he became by the contrasting approaches between the extremist old guard he grew up with and the younger, stricter, fighters emerging in their wake. While Daesh seemed to resemble the earlier incarnation of Hizb that he joined in the late 1970s — executing alleged spies in the pockets of territory under its control and demanding everyone adhere to its interpretation of Islam — the men he had spent a lifetime serving alongside appeared to have given up on their goal of turning Afghanistan into a radical Islamist state that would inspire uprisings across the Muslim world.
The last straw for Amanullah came in April 2017, when Hekmatyar used his first public speeches in the country for 20 years to rebuke sections of the insurgency and call for an end to the war. As far as the commander was concerned, his leader was tacitly condoning the American occupation. To add to his consternation, Hekmatyar — a man once famous for his support for Al-Qaeda and his strident denunciations of US foreign policy — then came to Kabul and took up residency in a house owned by the Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani.
“God is a witness that from the start of the peace talks until the end, the process was un-Islamic and illegal,” Amanullah told Arab News. “If you look at history Muslims never send an offer of peace to infidels and apostates; it is always the infidels who send us the offer of peace. They are the forces of Satan and they will be defeated by the forces of God — they cannot resist us.”
Disgusted, he announced that he was forming his own faction of Hizb and took hundreds of fighters with him. He insisted to us that this move was initially meant as a symbolic show of dissent, rather than an act of war against his former colleagues. He claimed he only intended to speak out against the peace deal and had no plans to reignite his insurgency until the drone strike caused him to reconsider his options and edge even closer to Daesh.
Amanullah survived the attack, which occurred in La Hussein, with relatively minor injuries, but two of his most trusted fighters were killed: Amran, a 25-year-old father of five, and Redi Gul, a 30-year-old father of seven. In the hours that followed the commander’s men began to spread the rumor that he had also died, hoping the announcement would be picked up by mainstream and social media, throwing the Americans off his scent. The deception worked.
In the ensuing days leaflets started appearing in and around Kunar, warning of more retribution to follow. “Hajji Amanullah is dead!” they proclaimed in Pashto, over a picture of him with his face crossed out. “We are coming after you. Understand this: your leaders are also not safe because the coalition forces are coming after you.”
It was a boast that may yet come back to haunt the American and Afghan governments. We first met Amanullah in June 2016, before he formed his own faction of Hizb. Back then, he was happy walking in daylight and served under Hekmatyar’s chief lieutenant, Kashmir Khan, a prominent local commander who would die of natural causes later that year. Even in those days Daesh fighters enjoyed the protection of Hizb in Shaygal but their numbers were small. By the time of our most recent meeting late last year, the situation was markedly different. Security was tighter and the tension greater.
With drones clearly audible in the sky over the district, Amanullah’s militants forbade photography and kept phone conversations to a minimum. It took us several attempts to rendezvous with him at a safe house in rugged terrain in a remote corner of the district.
He arrived for the interview just after 10:45pm, accompanied by five bodyguards. He wore a shalwar kameez, a flat Afghan pakhool hat, military belt and hiking boots, and walked with the aid of a long stick. He was polite and genial, demonstrating the hospitality Pashtuns customarily show to guests. Throughout the area in which we met there was talk of the growing strength of Daesh. In places under Amanullah’s jurisdiction the group’s fighters roamed freely alongside members of the Taliban. He claimed they had all learnt from the way he and his men governed with an iron fist.
“I tell people here that the rules and laws of Daesh were the rules of Hizb. First they were adopted by the Taliban, now they are adopted by Daesh,” he said.
As someone who prides himself on keeping his word and protecting the honor of his fighters, Amanullah’s split with Hizb’s leadership has proved more traumatic than the drone strike that nearly killed him. He still regards himself as a member of the party but feels senior figures within the movement have betrayed its core principles, leaving him with no choice other than to take matters into his own hands and establish a splinter group.
At a gathering of 3,000 mainstream Hizb members in Kabul last November, Hekmatyar attempted to address the grievances of colleagues like Amanullah who are angry with the peace agreement. He acknowledged that the government had yet to fulfil key aspects of its side of the deal, including the large-scale release of party prisoners and the provision of land for the families of thousands of Hizb members currently living as refugees in Pakistan. But he claimed that by working openly in the country Hizb now had “an effective and decisive role” in Afghan politics. Dissidents should “be patient and have hope in the future,” he said.
Privately, some senior party officials are less magnanimous toward their former brothers-in-arms who continue to advocate violent resistance. Speaking to us last autumn, one high-ranking figure in Hekmatyar’s inner-circle accused Amanullah of acting out of self-interest, claiming the rogue commander was being funded by unspecified foreign donors to cause divisions within the party’s ranks.
We found no evidence to support this claim. The living conditions of Amanullah and his men were far harsher than their contemporaries in Kabul, and they expressed no interest in compromise or political power. What mattered to them was sticking to their radical beliefs, however unpalatable those ideas may be to millions of their fellow Afghans.
In Shaygal itself, the highly conservative community views Amanullah’s strict leadership as upholding Islamic values. Smoking and music are outlawed in villages under his control and it is forbidden for men to shave. Opium cultivation is banned and residents are only allowed to fish using nets or rods, not by throwing grenades into the local river — a practice that has become all too common in war-ravaged Afghanistan.
He predicted that Hizb’s influence would wane under Hekmatyar’s continued guidance and left open the possibility that he would formally merge his break-away faction of the movement with Daesh. Even if he is killed there seems little doubt that his followers will continue the jihad he started more than 30 years ago.
“All over the country the Mujahedeen of Hizb are ready to stay with us and continue as Mujahedeen until we achieve our holy aim,” he said.
When the interview was over he gathered a handful of his men and led them in prayer. He then melted back into the night.

* For this article Chris Sands reported from Kabul and Fazelminallah Qazizai reported from Kunar.


Nigeria army head vows to counter jihadist attacks

Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

Nigeria army head vows to counter jihadist attacks

MAIDUGURI, Nigeria: Nigeria’s top military officer on Thursday told troops in a region battling increased jihadist unrest that the attacks would be quickly resolved.
The Islamic State West Africa Province group and its rival Boko Haram have intensified assaults on military bases in recent weeks, notably in the northeastern state of Borno, epicenter of an insurgency dating back to 2009.
According to an AFP tally, at least 10 bases have been attacked in two months. At least 100 people, including civilians, were killed in attacks in April.
“Actions have been taken to ensure that we address the series of attacks,” chief of defense staff General Christopher Musa told troops in Borno’s capital Maiduguri, promising new material was being drafted in.
Musa said conflict in the Sahel states including Mali, Chad and Niger “has put a lot of pressure on Nigeria and that’s why you see recent attacks have occurred.”
“Whatever is going on is just for a short while,” he said.
Musa suggested fencing Nigeria’s borders, saying “there are countries that have fenced over a 1,500 kilometer (930 mile) stretch” — roughly the length of the Nigeria-Niger frontier.
While violence has fallen from its 2014-2015 peak, the governor of Borno recently warned that the military was losing ground to jihadists, and the latest attacks have put the conflict back in the spotlight.
More than 40,000 people have been killed and two million displaced in northeast Nigeria since 2009, according to the United Nations.
A Multinational Joint Task Force, a coalition created by Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon, Benin and Chad to fight cross-border armed groups, has been hampered by the withdrawal of Niger and threats by Chad to do the same.
According to a recent Nigerian intelligence report seen by AFP, there are also internal problems.
Late payment of salaries “has been a recurring problem,” particularly in the northeast, it said.
The report warned of “frustration and demotivation among security personnel, which could potentially lead to mutinies or unrest, if not urgently addressed.”
President Bola Tinubu this week called for the creation of a “forest guards” unit “to flush out terrorists and criminal gangs.”
Nigeria’s vast, often inaccessible forests have become havens for jihadist and armed criminal groups.
While the Nigerian army often works with local self-defense groups, questions remain over how the proposed forest guard be financed, work with existing security forces and even how long it would take to set up.


13 hurt when car plows into crowd before Spanish footbal match

Updated 16 sec ago
Follow

13 hurt when car plows into crowd before Spanish footbal match

  • Police ruled case as an accident, described all injuries as "minor"
  • Driver arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving and causing injury

BARCELONA: At least 13 people were hurt when a driver lost control and plowed into a crowd gathered outside a football match between RCD Espanyol and city rivals FC Barcelona, police said on Thursday.
Police said people were hurt when the vehicle rammed into the crowd outside RCD Españyol soccer stadium in Barcelona at the start of the game.
Police added in a statement on social media site X that the incident did not present any danger to the crowd inside the stadium.
Salvador Illa, the Catalan regional president, said on Thursday all the injuries were “minor” and ruled out any deliberate attack.
The driver has been arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving and causing injury.


New Royal Navy chief under renewed scrutiny over Afghanistan war crimes evidence

Updated 51 min 39 sec ago
Follow

New Royal Navy chief under renewed scrutiny over Afghanistan war crimes evidence

  • Gen. Gwyn Jenkins previously accused of failing to report evidence of war crimes committed by British forces
  • It is also alleged he oversaw rejection of hundreds of resettlement applications from Afghans who served alongside British troops against the Taliban

LONDON: The man chosen as the new head of the UK’s Royal Navy was previously accused of failing to report evidence of war crimes allegedly committed by British forces in Afghanistan.

Gen. Sir Gwyn Jenkins, who was appointed on Thursday, also faced allegations this week that he oversaw the rejection of hundreds of resettlement applications from former Afghan special forces members who served alongside British troops against the Taliban, The Guardian newspaper reported.

Jenkins replaces Adm. Ben Key, who stepped down last week over allegations of misconduct.

The new navy chief previously led UK Special Forces in Afghanistan during the war against the Taliban. That conflict is under renewed scrutiny in Britain following recent fresh allegations of war crimes involving members of Britain’s elite Special Air Service and Special Boat Service.

In 2023, it emerged that Jenkins had been warned in writing in 2011 that SAS troops had claimed to have executed handcuffed detainees in Afghanistan. Rather than refer this evidence to the Royal Military Police, the BBC reported at the time, Jenkins placed the documents in a safe. However, The Telegraph newspaper reported that Jenkins did pass the evidence up the chain of command at the time.

This week, an investigation by the BBC current affairs program “Panorama” revealed that Jenkins personally appointed an officer under his command to assess the Afghan resettlement applications. Thousands of former elite Afghan soldiers were rejected, despite credible evidence of their service alongside British counterparts.

The UK’s Ministry of Defence said it was “not appropriate … to comment on allegations which may be within the scope of the statutory inquiry,” referring to a public inquiry underway in the UK to investigate the war crimes allegations.

There was “no evidence” that Afghan resettlement applications were rejected to prevent the former soldiers from giving evidence to the war crimes inquiry, it added.

Defence Secretary John Healey on Thursday described Jenkins as a “proven leader with a distinguished career in both the military and at the core of government.”

He added: “I know he will deliver in this pivotal role, making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.”

Sarah Atherton, a former Tory MP who sat on the Defence Select Committee, told The Telegraph: “Military personnel, especially senior leaders, are held to high ethical and behavior standards.

“If somebody is facing an allegation … I know it’s alleged, but it’s just very strange to appoint someone who is in this position, given the circumstances. That is bizarre.”

Jenkins said after his appointment that he wanted to “accelerate” the Royal Navy’s return to a “war fighting force that is ready for conflict.”


US Supreme Court grapples with Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship

Updated 49 min 15 sec ago
Follow

US Supreme Court grapples with Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship

  • Trump order targeted children of certain immigrants
  • Three judges issued orders blocking policy nationwide

WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court wrestled on Thursday over Donald Trump’s attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship, a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as the Republican president seeks a major shift in how the US Constitution has long been understood. The court’s conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority, seemed willing to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions, as federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts did to block Trump’s directive. None of the justices, however, signaled an endorsement of Trump’s order and some of the liberals said it violates the Constitution and the court’s own precedents.
The justices heard more than two hours of arguments in the administration’s emergency request to scale back the injunctions blocking Trump’s directive, which is a key part of his hard-line approach toward immigration. Three judges found that Trump’s order likely violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment citizenship language. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she believes Trump’s order violates multiple Supreme Court precedents concerning citizenship. Sotomayor said the court should weigh the order’s legality “if we are worried about those thousands of children who are going to be born without citizenship papers that could render them stateless” and leave them ineligible for government benefits.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump’s order takes effect, according to the plaintiffs who challenged the directive, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants.
The case is unusual in that the administration has used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue universal injunctions, and has asked the justices to rule that way and enforce Trump’s directive even without weighing its legal merits. Sauer focused on this issue, calling the increasing use by judges of universal injunctions a “pathology.”
In potentially restricting the ability of lower courts to issue universal injunctions in certain instances, the conservative justices raised the idea of requiring plaintiffs to funnel claims seeking broader relief into class-action lawsuits, which are filed on behalf of a group of people who suffer similar legal injuries.
Some of the conservatives also signaled that at least for the states that sued, relief might properly extend beyond their borders, as a universal injunction does.
Complicating matters, some justices — conservatives and liberals alike — also seemed reticent to rule without further delving into the underlying legal merits of Trump’s directive. It remained uncertain whether the court would order further briefing, which would further delay resolution of the case.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked Kelsi Corkran, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs, “Should we decide or make up our minds on the underlying birthright citizenship question without briefing and argument and deliberation?”
Corkran said the justices should take up the case specifically on the merits of Trump’s order, adding, “The government is asking the court to allow it to ignore this court’s precedents ... and to upend 100 years of executive branch practice.”
The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s directive violated the 14th Amendment, which long has been understood to confer citizenship on almost anyone born on US soil. It was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War that ended slavery in the United States.
The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The administration contends that this citizenship language does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas.

‘All kinds of abuses’
Without a universal injunction blocking Trump’s order, it could be years before the Supreme Court finally decides its constitutionality, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.
“There are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions,” Kagan told Sauer. “But I think that the question that this case presents is that if one thinks that it’s quite clear that the (executive order) is illegal, how does one get to that result in what time frame, on your set of rules without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?“
Sauer noted that after the dispute percolates in lower courts, the Supreme Court can ultimately pronounce on the legal merits of the policy, prompting conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett to express skepticism.
“Are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there’s no way to do this expeditiously?” Barrett said.
Sotomayor compared Trump’s directive to a hypothetical action by a president taking away guns from every American who owns one despite the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Sauer said that since Trump returned to the presidency, federal judges have issued 40 universal injunctions against his administration’s policies.
“This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations,” Sauer said.

Variations by state
The administration is seeking to narrow the injunctions to apply only to the individual plaintiffs and the 22 states, if the justices find the states have the required legal standing to sue. That could allow the policy to take effect in the 28 states that did not sue, aside from any plaintiffs living in those states.
Jeremy Feigenbaum, the lawyer arguing for the states, said states face high and costly hurdles in managing difficulties in distributing government benefits if the order takes effect and citizenship is applied in a patchwork fashion, adding that class-action cases are “not available for state litigation.”
Feigenbaum suggested that the justices could limit universal injunctions to a narrow set of cases, including in this case where alternatives to such broad relief “are not practically or legally workable.” Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, a critic of univeral injunctions, expressed some agreement with Feigenbaum on that point.
Feigenbaum said the legal issue surrounding Trump’s executive order was resolved by the Supreme Court 127 years ago.
An 1898 Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. The administration has argued that the court’s ruling in that case was narrower, applying only to children whose parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.”
The 14th Amendment overrode an infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision called Dred Scott v. Sandford that had denied citizenship to enslaved and free Black people and helped fuel the Civil War.
“This order reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not illegal aliens or temporary visitors,” Sauer told the justices of Trump’s directive.
The case is the first involving a Trump policy to be argued at the top US judicial body since he returned to office, though the justices have acted on an emergency basis in several other challenges to his policies. Three of the justices were appointed by Trump during his first term as president.

 


Trump says urged Apple to manufacture in US not India

Updated 15 May 2025
Follow

Trump says urged Apple to manufacture in US not India

DOHA: US President Donald Trump said on Thursday he urged Apple to manufacture its products in the US instead of India, where the US tech giant has said it would be shifting production after US tariffs on China.

“I had a little problem with Tim Cook,” Trump said, referring to Apple’s CEO, during a multi-day tour of the Gulf. 

“I said, Tim, we treated you really good. We put up with all the plants that you built in China for years now.”

The president told Cook: “We’re not interested in you building in India ... we want you to build here and they’re going to be upping their production in the United States.”

Apple announced in February it would invest more than $500 billion in the US over the next four years and promised to hire 20,000 people in the country.

“Apple’s already in for 500 billion, but they’re going to be upping their production, so it’ll be great,” Trump said in Qatar.

On Monday, the US and China announced an agreement to suspend tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days, de-escalating a trade war that has spooked financial markets and raised fears of a global economic downturn.

Before the agreement between Beijing and Washington, Cook said Apple was “not able to estimate the impact of tariffs precisely.”

When presenting the tech company’s firstquarter profits in early May, Cook said he expected “a majority of iPhones sold in the US will have India as their country of origin”.

He warned of the uncertain impact of the 145 percent US tariffs on products from China — the company’s long-time manufacturing hub — despite a temporary reprieve for high-end tech goods such as smartphones and computers.

Although completed smartphones are exempted from Trump’s tariffs for now, not all components that go into Apple devices are spared.