Reuters: Head of Islamic State in Afghanistan confirmed killed
The head of Islamic State in Afghanistan, Abdul Hasib, was killed in an operation on April 27 conducted jointly by Afghan and U.S. Special Forces in the eastern province of Nangarhar, U.S. and Afghan officials said on Sunday.
Hasib, appointed last year after his predecessor Hafiz Saeed Khan died in a U.S. drone strike, is believed to have ordered a series of high profile attacks including one in March 8 on the main military hospital in Kabul, a statement said.
Last month, a Pentagon spokesman said Hasib had probably been killed during the raid by U.S. and Afghan special forces in Nangarhar during which two U.S. army Rangers were killed, but prior to Sunday's announcement there had been no confirmation.
Read more ....
More News On U.S. And Afghan Officials Confirming That The Head Of The Islamic State In Afghanistan Was Killed By A Special Forces Raid In April
Top ISIS Commander in Afghanistan Was Killed in Raid Where Rangers Died -- NBC
Pentagon: IS in Afghanistan leader killed in April raid -- AP
US: Emir of Islamic State’s Khorasan province killed in Apr. 27 raid -- Long War Journal
Afghanistan: IS head killed in raid - President Ghani -- BBC
Leader of ISIS Branch in Afghanistan Killed in Special Forces Raid -- New York Times
US forces kill Sheikh Abdul Hasib, Islamic State’s leader in Afghanistan -- The Australian
Pentagon: Islamic State's Afghan leader killed in April raid -- UPI
US and Afghan officials: 'IS' leader in Afghanistan killed in military raid -- DW
Islamic State Chief in Afghanistan Killed -- VOA
Chief Of Islamic State In Afghanistan Confirmed Dead After Raid -- RFE
ISIS chief in Afghanistan killed in April raid, US military says -- FOX News
Who is Abdul Hasib? Afghan ISIS Leader Killed In Special Forces Operation -- International Business Times
Sheikh Abdul Hasib Dead: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know -- Heavy
5 comments:
And no...I didn't mean duckface ;)
big deal. if killing leaders was that important, al qaeda and the taliban would have disappeared a decade ago. but no, they don't go away...they're still there.
a new strategy has been needed for a long time now but it seems like the generals haven't learned a thing.
True,but some leaders are more valuable than others and it sure as hell must make them paranoid and hurt moral.
,
aaa - look, I agree with you.. you need to fight the ideology.. absolutely.
BUT, this is still a big deal, and here's why:
1. It makes international news and shows the US/Allies are on top of things and can actually kill the leaders
2. It sends a message to the troops on both sides: Not only will we come after the bad guys, and their leaders, but we will kill them - you can run, but you cannot hide, no matter who you are.. Bin Laden, or that guy.. who already no one remembers his name.. and that's half the point.. their leaders come and go and all will be forgotten, fighting for a pointless war.. that's gotta wear them down.. if not now, in a few decades it will.. Syria and some of the other places are nothing but meat grinders, where we want them to be, killing them by the hundreds a day.. while this is unsustainable in itself, it is very effective when combating the ideology, which happens, but I agree with you, not efficiently enough yet
3. It disrupts their intelligence and network, here's why: Whenever senior people get killed a lot of institutional knowledge and expertise is lost.. much of this knowledge cannot be transferred just by digitial means, but is about relationships, best practices etc.. all gone with a bullet through the head :P
4. Disrupting their networks is also good for us, because it makes them paranoid.. they will be asking themselves.. damn, how could that happen, who tipped them off.. creating paranoia among themselves (as we have seen over and over again), which leads to them killing themselves (because they suspect others to be spies), which IS GREAT and better than I don't know, whatever your favourite food is... it's so sweet we should celebrate those days haha
5. Many of them join ISIS because of a mix of survival instinct (they got guns) and a mix of "they pay me well, maybe I can rise up and make some real money".. by seeing what happens to the foot soldiers and to the leadership, fewer people will be incentivised to pick up weapons themselves
6. You gotta keep your foot on the throat of the enemy and show them that we are boss, and will remain boss.. look at it this way.. we are barely noticing the war overseas - it barely costs us anything in taxes, and we (our military and secret service etc - thanks to those guys!!) are killing them everywhere.... and we barely flex our muscle.. I believe they are learning that this way forward is a no-go for them, losing territory wherever they meet our military
Now -- having said all that, let me repeat - I fully agree with you that a grander strategy is needed, which requires all of us (Europeans, US, but also our East Allies) to work together in creating a stronger response when it comes to refugees, when it comes to what we accept in cultural norms, etc.. we are too weak on that, and weakness is never respected.. I have been to 40+ countries and it's the same everywhere.. people exploit what they see as weakness (and what we take for granted as just being nice). They literally think our niceness is weakness. And it's time for us to realize that.. we have to be nicer to the good ones and meaner to the bad ones.
But on top of that, many of their advantages, e.g. being able to spread ideology through the internet will be gone soon.. AI will help us in connecting the dots more and more efficiently and their internet usage will be even more a disadvantage.. so in terms of military, technology, it's not even a close call.. BUT.. our politicians and our social scientists are not doing their freaking jobs.. military, scientists, engineers all do their job in making this work.. politicians and social scientists (their job would be to come up with a grand strategy to combat an ideology) are not. Hence your and my frustration.
Fazman, of course some are more valuable than others but they're used to this by now. They've adapted, over the past decade (nearly two) to having their leaders continuously killed.
Anon, let me first make this clear that I'm talking about islamists in general, not specifically ISIS. Now, this is NOT a big deal. He was replaced before he was even killed; next man up. To your points:
1. Yes, it makes the news but who cares? The westerner sees this and says, "Ok, another a**hole dead...great". The islamist sees this news and sees a martyr, the ultimate goal. It's propaganda for them. They do as this guy and die for the cause, they get the virgins from mohammed.
2. They already know they can't hide forever...they've learned this by now...nothing new to them. They don't care that they can't hide forever because this IS NOT a pointless war to them....and it will still be that way in a few decades unless we change our strategy. We are the Great Satan to them; they will fight us to the death. And the US won't last a few more decades in this war...we will withdraw, whether it be from war weariness at home or a 'more important' war somewhere else (ie Iran, North Korea). Most Americans just don't have the heart to finish this.
3. Again, they have adapted to this! They've changed their processes, they have learned from having this happen over and over again.
4. Yes disrupting their networks is good. But I don't think killing their leadership is having the impact you'd think/hope it does. My support of this is the Taliban's resurgence in Afgahnistan and ISIS's expansion beyond Syria/Iraq. Sure, we're beating them down in Syria/Iraq but what is the cost? They're being pounded by the US, Russia, Assad Regime, Iraq, the Kurds, Turkey, etc and they still control significant ground there.
5. That may be true for ISIS, but islamists as a whole, no.
6. Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is a cost to these wars; the estimates I've seen range between 2 and 5 TRILLION dollars since 9/11. What do we have to show for it? A resurgent taliban and al qaeda in Afghanistan? A new threat, ISIS, that is spreading through Africa and the Middle east?
7. I agree with your point but it isn't going to happen for the simple reason that we are weak. As I said above, westerners don't have the heart to win this right now. After thousands more are killed in the streets though, maybe they will. I think we'll need another 9/11 before the West gets serious.
hearts/minds, fighting the ideology, and all that bs....yea I'm sure that helps. But that isn't how we win this.
1. we need to get the West fully on board to fight. as i said above, we don't have the heart to stay in long term. let's do what we can to fix that.
2. find a more cost effective way to kill them. We've hundreds of billions of dollars a year fighting them and they're probably not even spending 10 billion a year. This alone is a major win for them. using b2 bombers may kill them, but isn't worth the cost when all they have are ak47s, a few rpgs, and ieds.
3. go after the heroin. we know that the taliban is making considerable money off of this in afghanistan, we can easily find the fields. time to slash and burn. go after every source of money they have and make it ours.
4. go after the turs, saudis and pakistanis. we know these three countries have been supporting the taliban, al qaeda, and isis. i'm not saying go to war with them, but definately cut all aid to these countries until they play ball. if they don't stop supporting these groups, introduce them to mr mayhem.
ps, sorry about any typos...its nearly 2 here and i'm tired...
Post a Comment