Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Announces Ban on Trans People Serving in the Military

In a surprise series of tweets this morning, President Donald Trump announced a new military policy. Per Trump’s tweets, he plans on banning trans people from any and all military service.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

It’s unclear which “generals and military experts” he consulted with, but this announcement marks a major departure from current military policy. Last year, it was announced that trans individuals would be able to serve openly in the military. It’s also unclear what will happen to trans people already serving. Exact numbers are, understandably, hard to quantify, but it’s believed that approximately 1,320-6,630 trans Americans currently serve. But their medical care, which Trump cites as the reasoning for precluding them from service, contributes to a miniscule percentage of Department of Defense health care expenditures. Estimates put caring for trans people in the military anywhere from $2-8 million. For context, the DoD’s total yearly health care spending is to the tune of $50 billion.

There are a lot of details still to come, but right now, it seems clear that this move was at least partly political:

Just spoke to a Trump administration official about the transgender military decision. Here’s what they said… pic.twitter.com/eOWdvlxTfd

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) July 26, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The American University of Afghanistan has once again seen death at the hands of the Taliban, but it has no plans to stop providing education.

An adjunct professor and a graduate student were both killed on May 31 when 150 people were killed in Kabul, Afghanistan, by a truck bomb. Their deaths marked the third time in less than a year that members of the school, which is not affiliated with the American University located in Washington D.C., have been injured by the notorious terrorist organization.

The saga began on August 7, 2016, when Professors Kevin King and Timothy Weeks were abducted from their car. The pair then appeared in a hostage video which led officials to believe they are being held with other Westerners by the Haqqani sect of the Taliban. After this most recent attack, the university once again reiterated its request for the professors’ release.

Then, on August 24, 2016, suicide bombers set off a bomb outside the walls of the school and raided the compound. The attack left 15 people dead, including students, professors, and police officers.

Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, has once again erupted with violence in recent weeks, including an attack on a mosque and a bombing in rush hour that left hundreds of people injured. This violence has erupted during the holiest month of Islam, Ramadan.

Since American intervention in 2001, the city has been divided and on a perpetual edge of chaos. Still, the university reiterated its commitment to bringing Western education to the troubled nation.

“We haven’t closed, we haven’t stopped educating,” said David S. Sedney, who spent nine months as acting president of the school and revamped its security. “But we do watch things very carefully. But right now on balance, it’s the right thing to do to continue operations.”

Despite its fortification with 19-foot-high walls, the university remains on edge. Those walls are part of the new, supposedly safer, campus that reopened on March 25. While they enjoy the new facilities, students can be found debating how much safer the campus is, law student Samiullah Sharifi told the Washington Post.

The university, which opened in 2006, graduated its first class in 2011 as it sought to bring a liberal, Western education center to Afghanistan. It has lost a number of its professors and students in recent years, but is committed to their education no matter the costs. “In one attack we’re safe and in another we’re not,” Sharifi said. “We have accepted this as the reality of our lives.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American University in Kabul Faces Tragedy Again appeared first on Law Street.

The Taliban has released a video of two professors from the American University of Afghanistan who were abducted in August, the first public evidence that the rebel group is holding the two men hostage. The group wants imprisoned insurgents to be set free in exchange for the two Westerners. In the video, American Kevin King and Australian Timothy Weeks ask the U.S. government to cooperate with the Taliban so that they can be released.

The video clip portrays the two men as fragile and bearded, breaking down in tears and begging President-elect Donald Trump to lead negotiations. “Donald Trump sir, I ask you please. This is in your hands. I ask you please to negotiate with the Taliban. If you do not negotiate with them, we will be killed,” said Weeks.

Taliban video shows US and Australian hostages https://t.co/2tp1qEMWr6

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) January 12, 2017

The professors were abducted at gunpoint from their car on August 7, close to the university campus in Kabul. A team of Navy Seals and Army Rangers launched a rescue mission to free them, and the battle resulted in the death of several rebels. But the abducted men were not to be found–the U.S. troops were believed to have missed them by only a few hours.

A few weeks later the Taliban launched an armed attack on the university campus, killing 12 people and wounding many more. Classes have been suspended all fall and were just about to begin again when the video of King and Weeks was released. The school’s president, David Sedney, immediately issued a statement calling for the release of his colleagues:

We call on the Taliban to release immediately and safely Kevin and Tim and all other hostages. Kevin and Tim came to Afghanistan as teachers, to help Afghanistan. These innocent people have done nothing to harm anyone and need to be reunited with their family, friends and colleagues.

According to U.S. officials, the Haqqani wing of the Taliban is holding the men. That is the same group that also held U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who was freed in 2014 and was featured in the podcast Serial last winter. The Haqquanis are also believed to be holding a Canadian-American couple hostage, who allegedly have had two babies since being captured.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Abducted Professors Beg U.S. Government to Negotiate With the Taliban appeared first on Law Street.

Gun-toting militants strapped with suicide vests stormed a police training facility in Pakistan in the late evening hours on Monday, killing at least 61 people, and wounding at least 123 more. Cadets at the scene said the militants’ attack began at around 11:30 p.m., as most of the cadets were asleep. The siege lasted four hours, ending only after one militant was gunned down, and two others blew themselves up.

Most of those killed in Monday’s attack were police cadets in training. Some army personnel were killed while responding to the attack and in the ensuing gunfight with the militants. Witnesses said many cadets woke up as the attack began. Unarmed, they ran for their lives and leaped off the roof of the facility, which sent some to hospitals for treatment. “We were sleeping when terrorists attacked the center,” Asif Hussain, a cadet who was in the academy’s barracks at the time, told CNN.

Claims of responsibility for the attack have been coming from all directions, with the Islamic State as the most recent and most prominent claimant. On its official media website, Aamaq, ISIS said its soldiers carried out the bloody assault and posted the pictures of the three militants who it said were responsible for the attack. Pakistani officials could not confirm ISIS’ claim, nor the claims of any group, including a faction of the Pakistani Taliban knows as the Hakimullah group.

#PAKISTAN#IslamicState Claims Responsibility For Suicide Bombings On Police Academy In #Quetta, Releases Bombers Picture. #TerrorMonitor pic.twitter.com/LEmGTmrPOn

— Terrormonitor.org (@Terror_Monitor) October 25, 2016

The city of Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan province in southwest Pakistan, is no stranger to terrorist attacks. In August, at least 74 people were blown to bits in one of the deadliest attacks in Pakistan’s 69-year history. A Sunni militant group that targets Shiites killed over 160 people in a series of bombings in Baluchistan in 2013.

Before ISIS and Hakimullah claimed responsibility, the head of the Pakistani paramilitary forces blamed the Sunni militant group that carried out the 2013 bombings for Monday’s attack. That group, Lashker-e-Jhangvi Al-Almi, is based in neighboring Afghanistan. A spokesman for Afghanistan’s president dismissed those claims.

Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan expressed resolve in the face of terror: “This war isn’t over,” he said. “The enemy is weakened, but not eliminated.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS Claims Responsibility for Attack on Police Training Facility in Pakistan appeared first on Law Street.

A death was confirmed and a new leader appointed on Wednesday by the Taliban, the Afghanistan based Islamic terrorist group, according to an official statement from the group. The death: Mullah Akhtar Mansour, the former leader who was killed in an American drone strike last week in Baluchistan province in western Pakistan. The promotion: Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, a fifty-something judicial leader and spiritual authority who was chosen to succeed Mansour.

“All the shura members have pledged allegiance to Sheikh Haibatullah in a safe place in Afghanistan,” the Taliban issued in a statement to the media. “All people are required to obey the new Emir-al-Momineen [commander of the faithful].”

Akhundzada is notable because of his relative anonymity within Taliban ranks and his lack of battlefield experience. He served as a deputy to Mansour, and was the lead justice when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan from the mid ’90s to the early ’00s, when U.S. forces invaded the country and toppled the group. He was selected over two presumptive front runners, an operations leader and the son of the group’s founder, Mullah Muhammad Omar, who died of tuberculosis in 2013. Instead, the two men were selected as deputies under Akhundzada.

Not all factions within the Taliban agree with the new appointment. Some members of the Noorzai tribe–to which Akhundzada belongs–are unhappy with not being consulted on the matter, even though Akhundzada is a fellow Noorzai. A spokesman for the breakaway Noorzais anticipates a revolt in response to the decision which, he said, was made by a small contingent of elders rather than the usual few hundred group members.

While solidarity within the group seems elusive at the moment, the Taliban making peace with local governments is a hope the U.S. has held for years, and continues to work toward. The killing of Mansour signaled a shift in the U.S.’s patience with Pakistan–which has been accused of providing safe passage and relative safety for terrorist groups–when making battlefield decisions against the Taliban. Pakistan was to play interlocutor between the Afghan government and the Taliban in peace negotiations, though under the leadership of Mansour, that seemed like a fledgling reality. It remains to be seen whether Akhundzada is a more moveable negotiator.

In the meantime, the Taliban wasted no time in carrying out its deadly public strikes, as a van carrying government officials in Afghanistan was attacked on Wednesday. At least eleven people were killed and four injured.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taliban Appoints New Leader, Kills Eleven in Kabul appeared first on Law Street.

Taliban leader Mullah Mansour has been killed in a U.S. air strike; officials in Afghanistan confirmed the news on Sunday. The Taliban, which has a longstanding tradition of denying deaths of prominent leaders, has not yet commented on the event.

On Monday morning President Obama, who currently is in Vietnam, confirmed the death in a statement and called it an “important milestone” in the longstanding effort to bring peace to Afghanistan, saying:

With the death of Taliban leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansur, we have removed the leader of an organization that has continued to plot against and unleash attacks on American and Coalition forces, to wage war against the Afghan people, and align itself with extremist groups like al Qa’ida.

Mansour has been rejecting initiatives by the Afghan government to participate in peace talks, and this could be the time for the Taliban to seize an opportunity for reconciliation with the government, according to the statement from the White House.

Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour was killed in an airstrike Saturday https://t.co/y0glNYzZiL https://t.co/o6pQQLOAXL

— Carol Costello (@CarolCNN) May 23, 2016

The strike that killed Mullah Mansour was conducted on Saturday by the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as multiple U.S. drones struck the car he was traveling in, killing both Mansour and another Taliban fighter.

Mansour’s death does not mean an automatic change in the U.S. strategy when it comes to fighting in Afghanistan–the mission is still to train the Afghan forces to help themselves, not to do it for them, said Obama at a press conference in Vietnam. About 3,000 troops are in Afghanistan helping to combat groups like the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

Mullah Mansour had only been the Taliban leader since July of last year, a position he earned when his predecessor Mullah Omar–the infamous one-eyed leader who banned dancing and TV–was confirmed dead. Mansour repeatedly turned down peace talks and negotiations by the government, and was the commander in the seizing of Kunduz in September of last year. It is unclear who will succeed Mansour.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taliban Leader Mullah Mansour Killed: Obama Deems it “Milestone” appeared first on Law Street.

ISIL and the Iran Nuclear Deal have dominated the news in the Middle East as of late. But this week brings another headline contender, the actions of the Afghan Taliban. On Monday, the Taliban gained serious headway by capturing the major Afghan provincial capital of Kunduz. This is a real setback for the U.S.-trained Afghan security forces. The attack also raises the question of whether the U.S. will pursue the same exit plan from Afghanistan as it had intended.

The Attack on Kunduz

By the end of this summer, the Taliban and Afghan government were at an essential stalemate after months of back and forth. There weren’t any real victories nor losses; however, that quickly changed on Monday. Taliban forces took the city of Kunduz within hours of attacking. Kunduz was last under the Taliban’s control in 2001, before the U.S. entered Afghanistan and the Taliban fell from power. The city was considered one of the regional “centers of the American troop surge” five years ago. It is also the first major city to fall to the Taliban in fourteen years.

Kunduz, Afghanistan’s fifth largest city, was estimated to contain 300,000 residents in 2013. However, with the recent exodus of refugees in the Middle East, the number is probably lower. The city sits in the far north of the country, and is considered a main trading center as it contains essential supply lines and smuggling routes. The city is located approximately forty miles from the Tajikistan border.

During the siege, the Taliban freed hundreds of prisoners held in Kunduz. Crowds following the lead of a Taliban fighter with a megaphone chanted “Death to America! Death to the slaves of America!” Of the 600 freed inmates, 144 are reportedly members of the Taliban.

As for casualties, a spokesman for the Public Health Ministry, Wahidullah Mayar, tweeted that 30 people had been killed and more than 200 injured. He also stated that 90 percent of them were civilians. The main trauma center, run by Doctors Without Borders, reported receiving 171 wounded people, including 46 children. A representative from the center also expressed extreme concern over limited supplies and a growing number of wounded civilians.

After the attack, the newly elected emir of the Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, issued a statement to the residents of Kunduz. The statement hit five focal points: the Taliban would safeguard the city and the people inside, it would refrain from “extrajudicial killings, looting or breaching,” residents should feel safe in returning to work as normal, the Taliban would not retaliate against security forces or the government, and lastly, the Afghan government should discontinue blaming “outside intelligence agencies” for its defeats. However, according to the New York Times, alleged reports and videos from inside the city counter these promises. According to one official, electricity and phone services are out in most of the city. Roads to enter and leave the city have also been blocked.

A Lack of Preventative Measures?

The fall of Kunduz has left some questioning the strength and pragmatism of the Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani.

First off, the success of the attack itself may have been able to be prevented. Over the course of the past year, local officials in Kunduz reported Taliban movement surrounding the city. Meanwhile, some members of the Afghan government, along with Western officials, didn’t appear to take these concerns seriously. They believed the Taliban’s gain to be minimal and isolated to rural areas. Mohammad Yousuf Ayoubi, the head of the Kunduz provincial council, stated that although 70 percent of the province surrounding the city remained under Taliban control, zero efforts were made by security forces to make an offensive move or reinforce the city. This lack of preparation is being partly blamed for the fall of Kunduz.

The Counter-Response

As of Wednesday, the counter-attack had yet to see much success. On Tuesday, Afghan security forces fought back, including at least two U.S. air strikes. But by Wednesday morning, the situation seemed worse. Afghan reinforcements were held in the Baghlan Province, completely stopped or delayed by Taliban ambushes. One report cited 1000 Afghan soldiers and police officers held in the northern part of Baghlan.

The Taliban further advanced Tuesday night, surrounding the local airport, where hundreds of Afghan forces and civilians retreated. During the course of the night, “at least 17 members of the Afghan National Civil Order Police were wounded and one was killed defending the area around the airport.” The situation mildly improved after the U.S. air strikes, but U.S. attempts to airdrop food and ammunition reportedly failed. By noon on Wednesday, 60 soldiers had surrendered or had been taken by the Taliban.

So, how does this recent development fit into the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan?

The U.S. and Afghanistan

The End of the War

On December 28, 2014, the U.S.-led coalition ended its combat mission in Afghanistan. The war began October 7, 2001, when the Taliban harbored and refused to give up Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. U.S and NATO allies have remained ever since in order to train Afghan military forces and police officers to be self-sufficient, even after the fall of the Taliban.

“Over the course of a decade,” stated Army General John Campbell, chief of the International Security Assistance Force, “our Afghan partners and we have built a highly capable Afghan army and police force of over 350,000 personnel.” December 2014 marked the end of the longest war in American history and the transition to the NATO Resolute Support mission. The mission called to gradually reduce troops on the ground and “train, advise and assist” Afghan Security Institutions. Twenty-eight NATO Allies and 14 partner nations contributed to the mission.

The Removal of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

Before the formal end of the war, President Obama laid out a removal plan of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in May 2014. He planned to remove all but 9,800 American troops by the end of 2014, cut that number in half by 2015, and eventually pull the remaining troops by 2016. By the end of his presidency, President Obama planned the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to be that of a normal embassy with a security assistance office in Kabul.

This past May the plan was modified. During a meeting at the White House, President Ghani asked for the withdrawal plan to be slowed down. The meeting clearly reflects a serious concern on behalf of Ghani that a Taliban resurgence could manifest once U.S. forces have departed. Obama agreed to keep the number of U.S. forces at 9,800 until the end of the year, but still vowed to uphold his decision to remove all forces by 2016. Obama’s approval of the additional 5,000 troops shows confidence in Ghani’s leadership. Relations between the Obama administration and Ghani’s predecessor, Hamid Karzai, had rapidly crumbled before Karzai’s term ended. Unlike Ghani, Karzai refused to sign a bilateral security agreement in exchange for a continued U.S. military presence. Obama called Ghani’s leadership “critical to the pursuit of peace.”

Criticism

The current removal plan from Afghanistan is very reminiscent of the removal of U.S forces from Iraq in 2011, which did lead to severe consequences. Although the Obama administration exudes confidence in the status of the Afghan security forces, some Republicans and other critics fear history will repeat itself. Violence erupted in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Critics claim the void of leadership allowed the growth of ISIL.

The fall of Kunduz promptly led to statements equating it to Iraq.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, stated “The fall of Kunduz to the Taliban is not unlike the fall of Iraqi provinces to ISIL…it is a reaffirmation that precipitous withdrawal leaves key allies and territory vulnerable to the very terrorists we’ve fought so long to defeat.”

In a similar tone, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), stated “It is time that President Obama abandon this dangerous and arbitrary course and adopt a plan for U.S. troop presence based on conditions on the ground.”

If anything, the current state of Kunduz doesn’t promote confidence in Afghanistan’s forces maintaining control.

Conclusion

The Taliban’s control of Kunduz may very well be short-lived. But it could also be a warning sign. The strength and leadership of the Afghan government’s security forces needs to be able to stand on its own. We may be looking at a conflict that draws the United States back in. As of this moment, peace talks between the Ghani government and Taliban have been all but abandoned, and the situation seems to be worsening–what happens next will depend on the many players wrapped up in the growing conflict.

Resources

Primary

NATO: Transition Ceremony Kicks off Resolute Support Mission

Additional

The Long War Journal: Taliban Emir Seeks to Reassure Residents of Kunduz

New York Times: Taliban Fighters apture Kunduz City as Afghan Forces Retreat

New York Times: Taliban and Afghan Government Dispute Status of Kunduz

New York Times: U.S. Strikes Taliban-Held Land Near Kunduz Airport as Afghan Crisis Deepens

Time: U.S. Ends Its War in Afghanistan

Reuters: Afghan Forces Fight to Retake Northern City from Taliban

Reuters: Obama Plans to End U.S. Troop Presence in Afghanistan by 2016

Reuters: Troops from U.S.-led mission fight Taliban near Afghan city

The Washington Post: Obama agrees to slow U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

 I

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Taliban Captures Kunduz: Should the U.S. Still Leave Afghanistan as Planned? appeared first on Law Street.

Can Afghanistan stabilize as U.S. forces plan their exit? This was the question posed to five foreign policy experts at a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) panel I attended on Tuesday morning. The panelists examined ongoing crises in Afghanistan and addressed the next steps that they believe are essential to protect the future of the state. My major takeaway from the panel is that serious reconsideration should be given to whether or not leaving Afghanistan is the best policy at the present time. As a student studying international relations, I’ll admit that I am biased in my interest in this topic. But this decision affects us all and given the current status of Afghanistan, should be debated throughly among the 2016 presidential contenders. My vote will not be for a candidate who does not have a polished foreign policy strategy designed to work with the needs of Afghan leaders and communities.

There are certainly many very prevalent concerns about the state of Afghanistan. USIP’s Dr. Andrew Wilder opened the discussion by saying, “We’re going to struggle to find a few positive things to say during our panel.” Wilder, Vice President of South and Central Asia programs, just returned from Afghanistan on a USIP assignment and said the current situation in the country is bleak. Political paralysis, a sense of economic collapse, a deteriorating security situation, and rapidly fading international attention have caused turmoil in Afghanistan. There are international fears that the national unity government (NUG)–which was just formed in September 2014–may not be able to withstand the external violence and the internal political fragmentation and ethnic divisions within Afghanistan. Wilder said that we have arrived at a critical juncture in Afghanistan and the next several months will tell whether or not the country will be considered a “success story for U.S. foreign policy.”

These revelations coincide with the U.S. presidential candidacy announcements and I am skeptical of the fact that these pressing issues are not in the forefront of any campaign. The United States’ plan to withdraw troops by the end of 2016 and the international community’s decision to significantly cut foreign aid to the country are untimely, given the many factors contributing to the turmoil occurring there.

For example, security concerns in the state are still paramount. Ali Jalali, USIP Senior Expert in Residence on Afghanistan, discussed these issues, saying that there is tension within the government of Afghanistan to maintain unity and to govern effectively, and “sometimes effectiveness has been disregarded to maintain unity.” According to Jalali, in 2015 Afghan security forces, including local police, have suffered a 70 percent increase in casualties from this time last year. The average count of casualties per week currently stands at around 330. This increase in violence is directly related to the decrease of foreign aid and military services. The toxic combination of a new unstable government with leaders who have not yet been proven trustworthy, and the simultaneous withdrawal of U.S. troops is increasing the likelihood of a resurgent Taliban and potentially wasting years of war and the American lives lost during the conflict. The withdrawal at this critical yet sensitive time in Afghanistan’s move toward stabilization also provides the perfect breeding ground for ISIL to gain power and control. How to deal with those concerns will be a major hurdle for our next leader–the hands-off strategies we have mapped out will almost certainly need to be rethought.

Another consideration is the precipitous decline in economic growth sparked by the international drawdown of troops and aid–expanded upon at the event by Dr. William Byrd, USIP Senior Expert on Afghanistan. Byrd stated, “The fiscal crisis is quite dire with no end in sight.” He offered his opinions on how to make economic improvements in the country, but all of the strategies are so fundamentally intertwined with security and political implications that it is difficult to offer many viable solutions. For example, Byrd said that the best way to make improvements in the short run is by increasing the number of businesses in the country; however acknowledged that, “businessmen will look at the political and security situation and will not want to invest in Afghanistan due to the instability.”

To improve the chances of the Afghan government’s survival, the U.S. needs to support the NUG militarily, politically, and financially. Scott Smith, Director of USIP’s Afghanistan and Central Asia program, stated, “Two years is far too short a period to have all of this take place.” In other words, the level of support necessary to prevent collapse in Afghanistan cannot be achieved with a 2016 U.S. withdrawal. The United States and the United Nations should adopt a situational withdrawal policy rather than a time-oriented plan. We need to stay until the situation is stabilized and finish what we started. Yes, we should push for eventual Afghan independence, but we should not expect that so soon; to do so is detrimental to a potentially stable future. Politicians and voters should be rethinking these decisions and questioning whether they value idealistic or pragmatic plans more. Dr. Wilder ended the discussion by stating, “We should try to remain engaged, certainly not at the levels of the past, but enough to increase the prospects of peace, stability and independence in Afghanistan.” This advice should act as a guide for our presidential contenders and is something all Americans should keep in mind as we move toward 2016.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Timely or Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.

Starting in late April 2015, the Taliban launched its annual Spring offensive in Afghanistan. Since that time, the government has fought back and launched its own counteroffensive, which has continued throughout the month of May and into June. After more than a decade and major American military intervention, the Taliban remains active and strong within Afghanistan and neighboring regions. Read on to learn about the group’s origins, the impact of the American war, and the Taliban’s role in Afghanistan’s future.

The Origins of the Taliban

As the oft-told story goes, the Taliban emerged as one of the many competing groups among the Mujahideen fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the late 1970s through 1980s. The group and many others that would make up the Mujahideen were supplied, equipped, and financed in part by large contributions from the United States and Pakistan, which shares a close tribal relation to the Taliban.

The group came to prominence beginning in 1994, succeeding the ouster of Soviet forces. Following the scramble for control, the Taliban, a predominantly Pashtun group, began taking over large swaths of territory. The motivation behind the group centered on a strict interpretation of Sharia law and Sunni Islam. In 1995 they captured their first province, Herat, bordering Iran. By 1998 they had conquered 90 percent of the entire country and were effectively in charge.  The video below details the origins of the Taliban.

Help From Abroad

While the Taliban enjoyed a seemingly meteoric rise from obscure Mujahideen group to the rulers of an entire country, it was not without substantial help–inadvertent or overt–from outside sources. This assistance begins with the United States.

As touched on briefly, the U.S. initially started supporting the Taliban and similar groups in the 1980s in an effort to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. This assistance was far from benign, in fact several Mujahideen members actually visited the White House and met with then-President Ronald Reagan. The relationship continued openly until as late as 1997, when members of the Taliban came to Texas to discuss building an oil pipeline in Afghanistan with an American oil company. This even while the Taliban had been suspected of hiding Osama Bin Laden as early as 1996.

Even after the war in Afghanistan started and dragged on, the U.S. was still allegedly funding the Taliban inadvertently. Up to a billion dollars a year in funding ear-marked for the Afghan government, was believed to be funneled directly to the Taliban.

While the United States has directly and indirectly funded the Taliban, Saudi Arabia has been more direct. The Taliban themselves are widely suspected of emerging from holy seminaries paid for by the Saudis, which cultivated the ideals of strict Sunni Islam. However, their support has not stopped there.

Along with other gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia remains the largest funder of terrorist groups, including the Taliban. These funds are not usually given out directly. Instead, they are channeled through a false corporation that may request support to build more schools, for example. The Taliban and other groups can also raise money from these countries through kidnappings and extortion.

However, the Taliban’s strongest supporter is likely Pakistan, which shares the closest kinship bonds with members of the Taliban. The Pashtun is a tribe whose members live in an area that straddles the northern borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Many of the early members were also educated in Pakistani schools known as Madrassas.

Pakistan’s relationship with the Taliban did not end there. Like the U.S., Pakistan funded the Taliban in their efforts against the Soviets in the 1980s; however, the Pakistanis’ efforts continued after the Americans left, as Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI) continued to train members of the Taliban throughout the 1990s up until the American invasion in 2001.

In 2007, after being driven out of Afghanistan, the Taliban set up an organization in Waziristan, Pakistan and proclaimed itself an Islamic state. From this base the Taliban, which is still being supported by aspects of Pakistan’s ISI, has launched numerous attacks, assassinations, and kidnappings into Afghanistan.

The U.S. War in Afghanistan

Despite the Taliban coming to power essentially as a result of fighting one superpower, this did not prevent the other from going after them either. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, then-President George W. Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum to either hand over Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden or be attacked. The Taliban refused and U.S. forces were in the country in less than a month. Less than two months after that, the Taliban was defeated and pushed out of Afghanistan. Despite this victory, both Bin Laden and the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, were able to escape to Pakistan.

Following the overthrow of the Taliban, the focus of the U.S. and its allies shifted to nationbuilding and keeping the remnants of the Taliban at bay. The Taliban however, would not be so quickly dismissed and began a resurgence starting in 2005. The Taliban traded in their old tactics of facing the U.S. in conventional battles for guerilla tactics–particularly suicide bombs–which had been effective in Iraq. The group also resorted to the opium trade for funding. Afghanistan would eventually reach a point where it was supplying 90 percent of the world’s opium.

The renewed and increased violence led to another major policy shift: the surge. The surge was a large additional deployment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Newly appointed general Stanley McChrystal requested the troop increase out of fear that at current levels the war may be lost outright. Following this in 2010, Afghan President Hamid Karzai began to publicly float the idea of meeting with Taliban leaders for the first time. While the U.S. initially condemned his actions, by the following year and in the aftermath of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the Obama Administration announced it was open to talks.

Along with attempts at negotiating with the Taliban, the U.S. and its allies also began shifting greater responsibility and power to their Afghan counterparts. The U.S. and NATO also planned to pull out all troops by the end of 2014. However, following continued violence, uncertain safety situations, and attacks on NATO troops by allied Afghan soldiers, NATO agreed to keep as many as 13,000 soldiers in the country as part of a new bilateral security agreement signed by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. The war officially concluded in 2014, making it the longest war in American history.  The video below details the latest war in Afghanistan.

The Future of the Taliban in Afghanistan

So what is the Taliban’s position today? While as of 2014 they maintained direct control of only four of the 373 districts in the country, their reach is much greater. For example, in a 2013 assessment by Afghan security forces, 40 percent of the country was considered to be at a raised or high danger level. Furthermore, while Pakistan has paid lip service, the Taliban still have a strong base in the neighboring country. The group has also benefited from record poppy harvests and other illegal financing operations such as mining.

Partners in power?

Negotiations of varying degrees have been attempted beginning as early as 2010. President Ashraf Ghani seems especially eager to bring the Taliban to the table, as his first two official visits were to Pakistan where the Taliban is strong and China, who has sponsored such talks. The two sides finally met in May and while nothing was agreed upon, just meeting was a step in a positive direction. However, for more meaningful action to be taken it may require removing all foreign fighters from Afghanistan as the Taliban has articulated.  The video below presents a desire by the Afghan president to talk with the Taliban.

The question now is how likely the Taliban is to actually come to the negotiating table in a meaningful way? The Taliban currently have an entrenched position and are reaping the windfall from record opium sales. It is very possible that the group will simply wait out the withdrawal of all foreign combat troops and then reignite the conflict with a government that has been repeatedly unable to answer to the task.

Conclusion

You reap what you sow. This is an old saying that essentially means your actions will have consequences, whether good or bad. For the United States, it used the Mujahideen in its fight against the Soviets in the 1980s then left them to themselves for much of the next two decades; however, 9/11 revealed what can happen as a result of benign neglect.

While the attacks were not orchestrated by Afghanistan, they were planned by the insidious leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, who was allowed to live in Afghanistan by the Taliban and who helped them gain more territory in the country.

Since that fateful day the U.S., its allies, and many average Afghanis have fought with the consequences of earlier decisions. This process has now seemingly come full circle, as the U.S. and its regional partners are advocating for talks with the Taliban and suggesting a role for them in the government. The Taliban, for their part, seemed hesitant to commit and more likely to wait out the complete withdrawal of foreign forces before striking again at what is viewed as a weak government.

Resources

BBC: Who Are the Taliban?

Nazareth College: The History of the Taliban

Global Research: Grisly Peshawar Slaughter-Who Created the Taliban? Who Still Funds Them?

Guardian: WikiLeaks Cables Portray Saudi Arabia as a Cash Machine for Terrorists

Shave Magazine: Pakistan and Taliban: It’s Complicated

Council on Foreign Relations: U.S. War in Afghanistan

Brookings Institution: Blood and Hope in Afghanistan

Council on Foreign Relations: The Taliban in Afghanistan

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Resurgent Taliban Complicates Life in Afghanistan appeared first on Law Street.

Politics in the Middle East have long been as fluid as the sands which make up much of the region. From the crusades to colonialism to the present, many political players have vied for power and found at best only temporary success. Since the discovery of oil in the region in the early twentieth century, politics have become mixed with business; however, other considerations have more recently come into play such as extremism, revolution, and non-state actors. Couple these with the long-standing animosity between major regional powers such as Iran, Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia and the Middle East seems like a political powder keg waiting to explode. In addition, there has been almost constant intervention by foreign countries, most notably the United States. Together all these events have turned the politics of the region into one of the world’s most difficult jigsaw puzzles. Learn more about the most pivotal issues currently embroiling the region–although this is by no means an exhaustive list–as well as their root causes and possible solutions.

Brief History of the Middle East

The history of the Middle East is extremely rich. As one of the starting points for civilization between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, settlement has existed continuously for thousands of years. These years saw the rise and fall of several empires such as the great Caliphates, and more recently the Ottoman Empire.

The region is also home to three of the world’s most prominent religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Islam in particular has played a pivotal role in shaping the region’s politics. So too did the great schism in Islam when it split into two factions–Shiites who viewed Muhammad’s true successor to be his son-in-law Ali and Sunnis who believed the next leader of Islam should be elected. Sunnis eventually won the struggle and today are the majority worldwide.

More recently the Middle East has been home to incursions from western powers, from the time of the crusades to the present. In fact, the way the present Middle East is constructed probably owes more to European influence, namely through the Sykes-Picot treaty between Britain and France that divided the region controlled by the Ottomans into respective spheres of influence of those two nations following WWI. When those powers eventually left, the power vacuum was filled by another western nation–the United States–which has had seemingly endless involvement there for the last century.  The video below provides a historical view of the powers that have ruled the Middle East for the last 5,000 years.

All this activity has done a lot to shape the Middle East. Nevertheless, it is still unclear at this point what the Middle East even is. The term itself originated from British field commands in Egypt during WWII. Today it includes places as far apart as Libya and Iran. Others go even further, including nations such as Algeria and Pakistan despite those two places being very dissimilar except for their Islamic faith. It is not surprising then that a place with a long history, heavily influenced by outsiders and home to disparate groups has a number of complicated political issues.

Political Climate

Like its history, the current political climate in the Middle East is extremely complicated and not easily discerned. Thus a few particularly important flash-points will serve to highlight the major political issues currently affecting the region.

Israel/Palestine

This is one of the world’s longest ongoing and seemingly intractable conflicts. For the uninitiated, the root issue here is that two groups, the Israelis and Palestinians, have claims going back millennia embroiled in a seemingly endless struggle for a small strip of land nestled in between Egypt to the south, the Mediterranean to the west, Jordan to the east, and Lebanon and Syria to the north.

The country of Israel is relatively young–it was just founded in 1948. Founding the nation was no easy feat however, after years of European Jewish immigration to what was then British Palestine, the United Nations in 1947 divided the area into two zones: one Israeli, one Palestinian. This decision led to continued violence between Jewish settlers and Palestinians, as well as other nations including Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. When the dust finally settled, a Jewish homeland had been created, while a Palestinian country had yet to materialize.

The history of the conflict has only been made more complicated by a series of wars between Arab nations and Israel that branded an image of mistrust in the minds of the neighbors. Nonetheless, even these wounds may have healed if not for the continued violence between the two sides. This included frequent attacks by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which governs Palestinian territories. The PLO finally called off attacks on Israel in 1993 when its leader and founder Yasser Arafat reached an agreement with Israel in which both sides acknowledged the other’s right to exist.

Second were the intifadas or uprisings by Palestinians. Two such instances have occurred, one in the 1980s and another in the early 2000s. In both cases what started as relatively peaceful protests turned violent when protesters encountered Israeli military personnel, which then led to long and bloody struggles. Also in both cases, the number of Palestinian dead has far outpaced the number of Israelis killed, prompting the claim of disproportionate response by Israeli military leaders.

Third is the tactics of Hamas. Hamas is, in essence, a Palestinian terrorist group bent on the destruction of Israel, which it does not recognize. Hamas does garner support in Palestinian areas though, in fact in 2006 it won a majority of seats in Parliament. However, its inability to reconcile with Israel or that of the rest of its party led it to break away and rule Gaza separately from the rest of the PLO. Hamas’ political gains have not totally softened its edges, as just this past summer it was engaged in small-scale war with Israel.

The issue then at its core is somehow devising a solution that pleases both sides. Not helping matters further are Israeli settlers’ moves to live in areas long claimed by Palestine and frequent rocket attacks from Palestinian-controlled zones into Israel. At this point though with Israel in effect walling off and totally controlling Gaza something has to change dramatically for this situation to have any chance of improving.

Unfortunately however, this issue is unlikely to be solved for a number of reasons. On Israel’s side its continued building of settlements, strong political opposition to reconciliation, dubious military tactics, and inability to be recognized by its neighbors are some of the biggest obstacles. Conversely for Palestine, its support of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and unwillingness to compromise on territorial demands make lasting peace appear illusive.

Iran Nuclear Program

A second major political flashpoint in the region is the Iranian nuclear program. The program already has a long history; however, it is nearing a point of no return. The Iranians can either finalize preliminary negotiations with the United States, stop trying to enrich uranium, and take a step toward normalizing relations, or they can continue and risk an attack by the United States, Israel, and potentially Saudi Arabia that would be far more destructive than the Stuxnet Virus was. The Stuxnet Virus a computer virus that disabled the Iranian nuclear program a few years ago.

There is hope though, as Iran and the United States have already outlined a framework for Iran shutting down its program, but only time will tell. Both sides missed a key deadline before the New Year and seem entrenched in their respective positions so a deal may still fall apart. Nevertheless it does not help to have American Congressmen threatening more sanctions. Iran clearly already feels threatened by the United States as well as by its ally Israel, and likely started a nuclear program in the first place to deter against a possible U.S. attack.

Iran-Saudi Rivalry

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, much of its position also hinges on what Iran decides to do. As a predominately Sunni nation, Saudi Arabia views Iran, a predominately Shiite nation, as its main rival both theologically and militarily for influence in the Middle East. Any Iranian deal or further recalcitrance would likely impact the relationship between Saudi and another major political player in the Middle East, the United States.

Nevertheless, such a deal is quite possible as long as cooler heads prevail. An Iran deal has significant ramifications for Saudi Arabia. If Iran goes through with its nuclear enrichment program and is not then directly attacked by the United States and Israel it is quite possible that Saudi Arabia attempts to purchase a weapon of its own to counter its rival.

Conversely if Iran does agree to shutter its program that too could also have a major impact on Saudi Arabia. In this case the impact could have more to do with its relationship with the United States. Already with increased American energy production, the reliance on Saudi Arabia as a key partner has become more debatable. Factor that in with Saudi Arabia’s repressive government and extreme religious views, such as Saudi’s support of Wahhabisism, and the United States might find itself wanting a different partner in the region that is more in line with its own belief systems.

The video below provides a look at the Iranian-Saudi relationship.

 Extremism, Non-State Actors, and Revolutionaries

While dealing with countries is hard, at least they have things like delegates and embassies. Non-state actors are a whole different issue. Particularly difficult in this region are the extremist beliefs of many of the non-state actors such as ISIS and Hezbollah. To satisfy these groups and even others like Hamas, which is only nominally associated with a state, many concessions would have to be made, which could give these groups free reign and could jeopardize the future of US allies in the region such as Israel.

To address these challengers, drastic changes would have to be made from the ground up. This would include extreme economic reforms to create jobs and thus leave fewer disenchanted people ready to fight. It would also call for the reform of institutions such as Madrassas, or schools where extreme views of Islam are often taught and which have also served as breeding grounds for future extremists.

The political climate in the Middle East thus was not created overnight and cannot be fixed that quickly either. Nevertheless, however muddled it is, there are a number of possibilities that could ultimately lead to the end of conflict but also a complete reordering of the region.

Future Concerns

As the rise of ISIS and the continued existence of other like-minded terror groups in the region have shown, a wave of discontent and extremism is unlikely to end anytime soon. Furthermore, the success of ISIS may not only embolden extremists but other groups to seek greater self-determination. The most obvious example is the Kurds in northern Iraq who are already essentially operating autonomously of the government there. Once the ISIS threat has passed, it’s unlikely they would rush back into the Iraqi fold. Instead, it is much more likely the Kurds would seek to finally establish their own nation. This then would have a ripple effect across the region particularly to the north in Turkey, which has a sizable Kurdish population that has long been a source of problems for the ruling government there. The issue would only be further clouded if the two sides became embroiled in a conflict as Turkey is a member of NATO while the Kurds are a major ally of the U.S., as well.  The video below explains Kurdish aims and the impact of the ISIS assault.

Unrest would likely be found in other places, too. With falling oil prices the heads of state in places such as Saudi Arabia might have a harder time fending off revolutionaries than they did during the Arab spring. This may only be exacerbated further by the demographics of this region. Much of the population is below 30 years old and as history has taught us frustrated young men without jobs are not good for stability. Of course before most of these issues can be settled defeating ISIS is a primary goal and what that may entail is particularly fascinating.

Already the U.S. has bombed ISIS in Syria, which in many ways helps beleaguered president Assad. Would the United States ever dream of formalizing an alliance with the man it stated before should step down? Even further along the line of possibility, would the U.S. ever come to some agreement with the likes of Al-Qaeda in order to squash that group’s splinter cell and now main rival for the hearts and minds of disenfranchised Muslims? While it seems unlikely it is definitely possible and maybe necessary if the U.S. and its allies wants to stomp out ISIS once and for all. For a comparison one need only look at Afghanistan where the U.S. has openly suggested including the Taliban in the government.

There are no easy solutions and these are not the only problems plaguing the Middle East, after all the aftermath of the Arab Spring could potentially flare up if extremist groups fill the gap left by those nations’ deposed strongmen. Regardless of the issue however, several possibilities remain that could change the nature of existing conflicts and turn friends into foes or vice versa.

Conclusion

The Middle East is one of the oldest continually inhabited places on the planet and the complexity of its politics reflect this situation. Empires and religions have risen and fallen in this region over the past thousand years and it seems this trend is likely to continue now only with countries and leaders serving the roles previously mentioned.

Whatever happens, change seems imminent in one way or another; there are just too many groups tugging on the proverbial rope to hope it won’t snap. When change does come it is unclear what the new order will be and what alliances will form. Much remains to be deciphered and only time will tell.

Resources

Primary

Brookings Institution: Pakistan’s Madrassas

Additional

Vox: 40 Maps that Explain the Middle East

Vox: What are Israel and Palestine? Why are they fighting?

Encyclopedia Britannica: Middle East

History: Britain-France Conclude Sykes-Picot Agreement

The New York Times: Timeline on Iran’s Nuclear Program

Guardian: Saudi Arabia Urges

BBC: Middle East

Economist: The Arab Spring

Fox News: In Dueling UN Speeches

Rand: Iran After the Bomb

The New York Times: Nuclear Accord With Iran

Press TV: US Moving Away From Saudi Arabia and Israel

Today’s Zaman: Saudi-Iranian Rivalry and the New Equilibrium in the Middle East

Progressive: Six Steps Short of War to Beat ISIS

Council on Foreign Relations: Islamic Extremism and the Rise of ISIS

Guardian: Kurds Again Dare to Dream of Uniting in their Own Country

Financial Times: Saudi Billionaire

Forbes: Youth in Revolt

Quartz: Why Partner With Assad

Huffington Post: How to End Afghanistan War

Press TV: Republicans in Congress Threaten Iran With More Sanctions

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Middle East Politics: What Issues are Affecting the Region? appeared first on Law Street.

In recent weeks, the swap of Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for Taliban leaders has sparked much criticism and mixed reactions towards the United States’ policy on dealing with terrorists. Congressional leaders are upset that they did not receive notification prior to the prisoners’ exchange. Others are fearful that the deal makes the United States appear to negotiate with terrorists. So, what does all of this mean–did President Obama make the right call to bring back Bergdahl? Most importantly, what are the future implications for American diplomacy? Here is everything you need to know on the Bergdahl’s exchange.

Who is Bowe Bergdahl?

Bowe Bergdahl is a soldier in the U.S. Army who was held captive by the Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network in Afghanistan from June 2009 to May 31, 2014. Bergdahl was released to the United States in exchange for five senior Taliban members who were held at Guantanamo Bay. The controversy surrounding Bergdahl’s release has made him one of the highest-profile POWs in decades. The exchange itself can be seen in the Taliban video below:

A celebration in Bergdahl’s hometown of Hailey, Idaho was cancelled due to the controversy and Bergdahl’s family has been receiving threats. Bergdahl is currently recovering in Germany, where he is speaking but still has not contacted his family or anyone in the United States. The focus is currently on Bergdahl’s emotional recovery, but officials are hopeful he will soon be able to shed light on his story.

How and why was Bergdahl captured?

The circumstances surrounding Bergdahl’s capture remain disputed. National Security Advisor Susan Rice claimed on ABC that Bergdahl “served the U.S. with distinction and honor.” However, numerous reports claim Bergdahl to be a deserter who grew increasingly disillusioned with the U.S. effort in Afghanistan. According to first-hand accounts, Bergdahl walked off his post and left behind a note along with his body armor and rifle. An unnamed defense official confirmed that Bergdahl walked off the post without authorization. It is reported that Bergdahl’s desertion led to the death of at least six troops in the search for him, though it is unclear if these deaths were directly related to the search for Bergdahl. According to an essay in the Daily Beast by Nathan Bradley Bethea, a former sergeant in Bergdahl’s battalion, “Every intelligence aircraft available in theater had received new instructions: find Bergdahl.” Troops were concerned Bergdahl may be providing the enemy with information. Bergdahl’s former squad leader, Justin Gerleve, goes so far as to tell CNN that following Bergdahl’s disappearance, “The attacks did get more direct, the IEDs did get more pinpoint to our trucks.” Reports dating to 2009 claim Bergdahl had wandered from his assigned areas before. The U.S. Army, currently investigating the claims made by those who served alongside Bergdahl, has yet to confirm any of these accusations.

What led to his release?

A deal involving Bergdahl’s release had been considered for several years but talks had continually broken down. In January 2014, the White House received an emotional video of Bergdahl whose health appeared deteriorated to the point of near death. The Obama administration stated the new health concerns conveyed the need to move quickly to bring Bergdahl home. While Bergdahl is currently listed in good health and reports of his desertion surface, President Obama has defended the decision in claiming the United States cannot qualify the release of a U.S. soldier. Some have praised Obama for his shown commitment to bring back POWs and for refusing to leave a soldier behind as the war ends. Obama defends his actions in the video below:

Relative secrecy of the deal was required as any information leaked from the deal was a clear threat to Bergdahl’s life by the Haqqani. Later, the administration added to its rationale that Bergdahl’s value to his captors was diminishing as negotiations had previously failed and the end of the war in Afghanistan was quickly approaching.

What were the arguments against his release?

The problem many have with the deal is that the President Obama failed to follow the requirement that the Defense Secretary notify appropriate Congressional committees at least 30 days prior to the transfer of any prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The National Defense Authorization Act stipulates the 30-day notification, but Obama did write a signing statement in December 2013 concerning the potential unconstitutionality of this Act. The statement outlines Obama’s concern that the Act could limit his ability to act quickly in conducting negotiations regarding detainee transfers, such as the fast action required to swap for Bergdahl. Still, members of Congress want answers for why they were not briefed. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is to testify in front of the House Armed Services Committee on the release of Bergdahl. The clip below discusses the alleged illegality of the swap:

Other concerns involve what future threats the five detainees involved in the swap may pose to the United States. Negotiations for the deal were made through Qatar, who promised the United States that the former prisoners would stay in Qatar and be prohibited from participation in terrorist activities for one year. The five released were all in their mid-to-late 40s and were the most senior Taliban leaders still in the hands of the United States. Questions surround what will happen when their one year travel ban in Qatar expires and what, if any, other restrictions are in place. Secretary of State John Kerry discusses the release of the Taliban and future U.S. actions below:

Discussion has also arisen regarding Bergdahl’s punishment. If Bergdahl was a deserter, the severe law on wartime desertion could mean Bergdahl would be subject to further punishment even beyond his five years already spent in captivity. Current punishment for military desertion could result in death, though it is highly unlikely Bergdahl would face such an extreme punishment.

Is this a new foreign policy stance?

Throughout the War on Terror and especially following the attacks on September 11,  it has been made clear the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. Some argue the prisoner exchange has made the United States appear to negotiate with terrorists, which has fueled fears that more Americans will be captured to be used as a bargaining chip. However, the United States has negotiated in the past to free American hostages, most notably in the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, in freeing hostages taken by Hezbollah in Lebanon in the 1980s, and even in trading Iraqi militants for the release of British civilian Peter Moore in 2010. It could be argued the country has entered a different era in foreign policy and in dealing with terrorists, but clearly the United States has traded for hostages in previous decades. Listen below  to the discussion of what message is being sent by the swap:

Will this have any impact in Afghanistan?

While negotiations were made through a third party of Qatar, the negotiation process has illustrated that it may be possible for the United States and Taliban to find some small area of mutually beneficial common ground. The Taliban showed good faith in the talks and a degree of trust was established. With this prisoner swap as a potential first step, greater talks in the future may come as the war continues to wind down. Some argue the deal conveys American weakness, as statistics from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence show more that 16 percent of detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to terrorist activity, while 12 percent are suspected of having returned to terrorism. One of the released, Noorullah Noori, has reportedly already told relatives he hopes to return to Afghanistan to fight Americans. But as the War in Afghanistan is soon set to end, the United States will have to release its prisoners at Guantanamo Bay if the prisoners are classified as POWs under international law. If the prisoners are to be released anyway, it makes sense to use them as a tool for negotiation rather than setting them free and coming away empty-handed. The real question becomes what will happen when detainees are set to be released and the United States no longer gets something in return. Could the swap have energized the opposition so closing Guantanamo Bay will become even harder?

Resources

Primary 

Barack Obama: 876-Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

Additional 

Politico: Rice: ‘Sacred Obligation’ Led to Bergdahl Swap

Weekly Standard: Susan Rice: Bergdahl Served with Honor and Distinction

Washington Post: Obama: No Apologies for Bergdahl Release Deal

USA Today: Bergdahl Trade More About Guantanamo

CNN: Kerry Defends Bergdahl for Taliban Exchange

Daily Beast: We Lost Soldiers in the Hunt for Bergdahl

Blaze: We’ve Got Bigger Problems: The Broader Implications of the Bergdahl Release

Wall Street Journal: Trading With the Taliban

CNN: Bergdahl’s Former Squad Leader: He Did Not Serve with Honor and Distinction

CNN: The Six Soldiers at Center of Bowe Bergdahl Debate

Wall Street Journal: Behind Bowe Bergdahl’s Release, a Secret Deal That Took Three Years

MSNBC: Bowe Bergdahl: Deserter or Hero?

CNN: Was Bergdahl Swap Legal? Depends on Who You Ask

USA Today: Army Says it Will Launch a New Review of Bergdahl Capture

Washington Post: The Timeline You Need to Understand the Bowe Bergdahl Story

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trading POWs: What Does Bergdahl’s Release Mean for American Diplomacy appeared first on Law Street.