In a new report scheduled for release on May 14, USIP’s Bipartisan Senior Study Group says Washington must prepare for the growing terrorist threat in the region and, crucially, the threat this poses to the U.S. homeland. states that it is necessary. The report of the Senior Study Group on Counterterrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan assesses the ongoing terrorist threat from Afghanistan and Pakistan and evaluates sustainable counterterrorism policy options. Its findings identify major terrorist threats, their impact on U.S. national interests, and U.S. policy options.
Research group members Ambassador Anne Patterson, Dr Tricia Bacon, Ambassador Michael P. McKinley, Dr Joshua White and Dr Brian Finucane review the report’s key findings and insights.
Why is it important for policymakers to consider the insights and policy options identified in this report?
Patterson: I am one of the many Americans who have been deeply involved in the fight against terrorism, saving many lives. But many of us also wonder whether, after two decades of focus on the war on terror, we have forever lost the opportunity to successfully counter China. Unfortunately, our policy adjustments overcompensated for this sentiment, resulting in a dramatic decline in interest in counterterrorism in South Asia. Americans want to see Afghanistan and Pakistan in the rearview mirror. Although American intelligence was able to give surprisingly accurate warnings to the Russians about the recent ISIS-K attacks in Moscow, our knowledge of the Afghan threat continues to erode over time. and will continue to be lost.
The report argues that more attention and counterterrorism efforts should be focused on South Asia. They argue that strengthening regional cooperation focused on counterterrorism can provide insights we don’t have and put pressure on the Taliban to reduce the terrorist footprint. The report argues that India-Pakistan relations and China-India tensions complicate the region’s counter-terrorism situation and increase the likelihood of broader conflict sparked by terrorist violence. And, alarmingly, the United States argues that it is fundamentally unprepared for a terrorist resurgence in the region, including threats against the U.S. homeland. We must recalibrate our counterterrorism approach to better protect American lives and U.S. interests, prevent disruption from provocations, and protect important strategic competitive priorities.
What are the key terrorist threats and trends in the region identified by the research group and why is it important for policymakers to understand them?
bacon: The research group identified the primary terrorist threat in the region as ISIS Khorasan (ISIS-K), an affiliate of the Islamic State based in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, by the time the research group completed its assessment, that threat had become a reality with the Moscow attack. Above all else, policymakers must recognize the threat posed by ISIS-K, as it has ambitions to attack the United States directly. ISIS-K is opportunistic and will seek methods of attack that do not require large-scale capacity building. Additionally, it is highly indiscriminate, actively attacking soft targets that most Sunni jihadist groups avoid.
Beyond the direct threat to the United States, ISIS-K attacks have heightened regional tensions, created distrust between governments, and impeded strategic competition among allies. Worryingly, the threat from ISIS-K shows no signs of abating. Counterterrorism cooperation against the group is hampered by international conflict and mistrust. And even though the Taliban has an incentive to counter ISIS-K, its ability to carry out multiple attacks outside of Afghanistan means that the Taliban has the ability to carry out multiple attacks outside of Afghanistan. indicates that the company is unable or unwilling to fulfill its commitments.
At the same time, long-standing threats in the region remain, and in some cases have worsened. Al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda in the Indian subcontinent are trying to use the Gaza war to rebuild safe zones under Taliban control. Moreover, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) was encouraged by the Taliban’s victory. As Pakistan faces political and economic instability, it is using its sanctuary in Afghanistan to increase its threat to the country. Finally, although Pakistan’s security services have curbed anti-India militant groups in recent years, terrorist attacks in India that can be traced back to Pakistan still have the potential to spark conflict between the two nuclear powers.
How does the research group assess the Taliban’s role in fostering and suppressing the threat of terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan and beyond, and the counterterrorism challenges posed by Taliban rule in Afghanistan? ?
McKinley: The debate since the fall of Kabul in August 2021 has been whether Afghanistan could become a base for new attacks against the United States at home and abroad. This study highlights the potential for Taliban-backed terrorist organizations in South and Central Asia to challenge broader U.S. foreign policy objectives. The statement acknowledges the priority and importance of responding to larger international challenges, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the conflict in Israel and Gaza, and the rise of China, but also acknowledges that the United States should monitor Ukraine and It emphasizes that more can and should be done to combat this. Support for regional terrorism by the Taliban.
This report provides practical suggestions for strengthening the United States’ counterterrorism capabilities, keeping in mind the resource constraints and challenges of addressing threats emanating from countries where the United States no longer exists. There is. This advisory is also timely, as recent developments in the Middle East and elsewhere clearly demonstrate that extreme terrorist attacks can surprise even the best-prepared governments. .
What kind of counterterrorism relationship does the research group propose with Pakistan, and why would such a relationship be more effective in reducing the regional terrorist threat?
White: It is undeniable that US interest in Pakistan has waned since the chaotic withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in 2021. That makes sense, given the pressing global imperatives created by China’s dramatic rise. Therefore, this study group wisely proposes a series of modest recommendations for U.S. policy toward Pakistan. This recommendation is designed to ensure that the counterterrorism relationship, no matter how difficult, can be maintained as a means of averting the very real risks of growing domestic terrorist activity. be. Regions focused on the United States and its partners. Part of this includes recognizing that there can be some reciprocity in the counter-terrorism relationship as Pakistan struggles to deal with the violent anti-state TTP and, to a lesser extent, ISIS-K. included.
What policy safeguards and legal provisions have the research group proposed to ensure that counterterrorism approaches to the region are sustainable and legitimate?
Finucane: Despite recent regional attacks by or claimed by ISIS, the prospects for new direct counterterrorism action (capture or lethal targeting) by the United States in either Afghanistan or Pakistan appear slim. If the Biden administration foresees a continued need for the use of force to counterterrorism in the region, or more generally, it should work to clarify the scope of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (2001 AUMF). The research group recommends that there is. To improve political accountability for U.S. military operations. This can be achieved by reforming his 2001 AUMF, which is outdated.
The Administration should work with Congress to update and better designate groups and locations of operations, as well as introduce a repeal clause in the 2001 AUMF. Another option, which is not mutually exclusive, is to publicly share the executive branch’s interpretation of the scope of its powers under both the 2001 AUMF and Article 2 of the Constitution on Direct Action Against Terrorism. Additionally, if the United States resumes direct action in Afghanistan or Pakistan, it should incorporate lessons learned regarding avoiding and minimizing civilian casualties, especially since the tragic Kabul attacks in August 2021. . For example, the research group focused on the importance of checking for confirmation bias and interrogating assumptions about identity during military operations.
Photo: More than 250 Islamic State fighters turn themselves in to avoid imminent capture by Taliban insurgents in Shebergan, Afghanistan, August 1, 2018. (Nazim Rahim/New York Times)
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors.
