More than a year after that task force was created, sources say it has not sent a single proposed target to the Pentagon for approval — largely because, without a presence on the ground, it has been unable to build enough intelligence on targets to meet the administration’s standards. to avoid civilian casualties.
The White House hailed the CIA operation that killed al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul on Saturday as evidence that the use of counterterrorism capabilities on the horizon in Afghanistan has been effective. Current and former officials say Zawahiri’s successful strike certainly proves that, with the right intelligence, the U.S. is fully capable of engaging a specific target from afar — but those same sources also said that Zawahiri, a single high-value target, long in The CIA crosshairs were a special case that didn’t just prove the effectiveness of the strategy.
“There’s a difference between going after a high-profile, high-value target and dealing with the resurgence of these terrorist groups in Afghanistan,” said Beth Sanner, a former presidential intelligence associate under President Donald Trump and senior CIA analyst for South Asia. “It’s a completely different ball of wax.”
Some intelligence officials have publicly expressed concerns that the terrorist activity incubated in Afghanistan will spread beyond the country’s borders and pose a threat to the United States — and that the US will turn a blind eye to it.
Asked directly by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, whether he was worried about an attack on the homeland “coming out of places like Afghanistan,” FBI Director Chris Wray on Thursday said: “We are. Especially now that we’re out I worry about the potential loss of sources and collection out there.”
“I’m concerned about the possibility that we could see al Qaeda resurgent,” he added.
In an indication of how high the stakes have become, some intelligence and military officials who were not involved in the carefully controlled details of planning Operation Zawahiri were pleasantly surprised that the U.S. was still able to successfully carry out such a precision strike, according to a former U.S. official. intelligence still maintains contact with former colleagues.
Administration officials say that on the contrary, the strike on Zawahiri is evidence that the US is successfully monitoring and countering the threat without American boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Sources familiar with the intelligence behind the strike said the US integrated many different pieces of data from multiple intelligence streams to locate and target Zawahiri.
“I think I’m more satisfied and more confident [in US intelligence in Afghanistan] than I was even a week ago because of what this gathering just allowed, which was a pretty remarkable, pretty precise action,” a senior administration official told CNN on Friday.
“The fact that there have been no other uses of force of this type in the past year means that we are watching and acting reasonably – and when we think the point of needing to act is reached, we act,” the official said. “But I think it’s a pretty powerful demonstration of what this capability can provide.”
The U.S. now relies heavily on drone flights and human networks on the ground to gather information about what is happening in Afghanistan, according to a former intelligence official and a source familiar with the intelligence.
But drone flights from the Persian Gulf are logistically complex and have limited dwell time in Afghanistan due to the long flight, making them expensive to operate and limiting their usefulness. And without an American presence on the ground, intelligence professionals expect human networks to deteriorate over time.
“I think we don’t know what we don’t know,” said one former employee.
Difficult questions
For now, there is broad consensus in the intelligence community that the immediate threat that al Qaeda could use Afghanistan as a safe haven to plan attacks against the US homeland or US interests remains low. But difficult questions remain about whether this risk will increase over time.
Much depends on the current unknowns — in particular, how the Taliban respond to Zawahiri’s assassination. “Are the Taliban really going to allow AQ to use Afghanistan?” said a source familiar with the intelligence.
“There are a lot of factors that play into this debate,” this person said. “And everything is complicated.”
The intelligence community, in its annual threat assessment released this year, rated the threat posed by al-Qaeda branches in Yemen, Somalia and West Africa as a greater risk to US interests abroad than its weakened leadership in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, officials say, is still gauging its ability to operate under Taliban rule and is likely to remain focused on maintaining its safe haven rather than planning external operations — at least for now.
And although al-Qaida leaders enjoy “increased freedom of action” under the Taliban, a recent UN report found there has not been a large influx of new fighters into Afghanistan since the US withdrawal – a reflection of how al-Qaida has evolved from a central planned attacks, according to some analysts.
But as for what happens next, one US source described the intelligence agencies’ analysis as “all over the place”.
“What we don’t think is happening is any kind of regrowth [or] re-establishing al-Qaeda’s operational presence – even with lesser-known names [than Zawahiri]” said the senior administration official.
There is a school of thought that while some elements of the Taliban may feel obligated to honor their oath to protect members of the al Qaeda old guard like Zawahiri, they have no obligation or incentive to welcome a new generation of fighters. And according to intelligence officials, there are vanishingly few members of al Qaeda’s original leadership remaining in Afghanistan, none of whom are likely to replace Zawahiri.
Meanwhile, the recent strike, some analysts say, may dissuade terrorist leaders from traveling to the country from elsewhere. They argue that the far greater risk are al-Qaeda affiliates in Africa and elsewhere, which are only loosely connected to the main leaders in Afghanistan.
“There are people who are very worried,” said Saner, now a CNN contributor. “I personally think that the core of AQ in Afghanistan is not doing a lot of operational planning.”
Others think it’s more likely that the Taliban — consumed by attempts to legitimize their government amid a financial collapse and an ongoing conflict with ISIS-K — simply don’t have enough bandwidth to prevent Afghanistan from being used by al-Qaeda or its affiliates. affiliates to plan attacks against the United States. There are also fears that the remnants of Al Qaeda may simply be swallowed up by the Taliban.
The UN report found a “close link” between al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
How the Taliban react
How the Taliban is responding to Zawahiri’s death remains an open question — and one that the intelligence and military are watching closely, many officials said.
According to one source familiar with the intelligence, US intelligence is not clear how many people in the Taliban knew that Zawahiri was hiding in Kabul in a house owned by the powerful Haqqani faction, a militant group that is part of the Taliban government. The Taliban have publicly denied knowing of his presence before the strike, and analysts are watching closely to see if his disclosure leads to some kind of rift between the Taliban and the Haqqani.
“The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has no information about Ayman al-Zawahiri’s arrival and stay in Kabul,” the Taliban said in a statement.
White House officials said Monday that senior Haqqani Taliban figures knew of Zawahiri’s presence in the area and even took steps to hide his presence after Saturday’s successful strike, restricting access to the safe house and quickly moving members of his family. including his daughter and her children.
“As far as we know, many people in the Taliban did not know that the Haqqani were harboring Zawahiri in Kabul. “Does this create a divide between the Taliban and the Haqqani?” said the source familiar with the intelligence.
The senior administration official said Friday that the Taliban are “struggling a little bit to figure out who knew what and who didn’t — and more to get their story straight about what happened.”
Meanwhile, some U.S. military officials hope the strike could help sway the Taliban into some kind of limited cooperation with the U.S. to target ISIS-K, a common enemy and separate terrorist group in Afghanistan about which the U.S. military is far more concerned. than al Qaeda, according to two sources familiar with the dynamic.
“I think it was a token strike that removed an inspirational leader,” Sanner said. “It accomplishes the task of removing the two people who were at the center of 9/11. But this is the end of an era – it’s not a current threat.”
Add Comment