With that, I’ll ask @Afghan_Policy to kick off the discussion with his opening thread! #AFGPanel 11/n
Näytä tämä ketju
-
-
Dr. Jonathan Schroden uudelleentwiittasi Ibraheem Bahiss
Here are
@Afghan_Policy’s opening remarks.#AFGPanel 12/nhttps://twitter.com/Afghan_Policy/status/1253671987206975488?s=20 …Dr. Jonathan Schroden lisäsi,
Ibraheem Bahiss @Afghan_PolicyThank you@JJSchroden 1/10: STATUS OF US-TALIBAN AGREEMENT AND IMPLICATONS OF NON-FULFILLMENT#AFGPanel I have in a previous thread dealt with the challenges of ascertaining whether the US-Taliban
is one to which international law applies. Refer to
https://twitter.com/Afghan_Policy/status/1234584500039872512 …Näytä tämä ketju1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 4 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Many thanks for those insightful thoughts
@Afghan_Policy! I’d like to next ask@a_a_jackson to provide her opening thread.#AFGPanel 13/n2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JJSchroden ja @Afghan_Policy
#AFGPanel Thanks! Locked down far away from all this and feeling woefully disconnected but caveats aside, here goes... The Taliban continues to expand/consolidate control in rural areas. Not breaking news, but the mechanics of Taliban strategy post-deal are worth exploring1 vastaus 2 uudelleentwiittausta 7 tykkäystä -
#AFGPanel Even w/o announcing a "spring offensive,” Taliban attacks spiked. Particularly attacks on ANSF/checkpts/convoys/etc, in the North/NE/NW as well as South Yet they seem to be mostly refraining from real attempts to take key terrain/district centers1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 6 tykkäystä -
#AFGPanel (Side note: Yamgan in Badakshan is an exception, but (a) they held it roughly from 2015 til Sept-ish? ’19 so it's not new ground and (b) it’s fairly marginal geopolitically/militarily speaking. I digress…)1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 6 tykkäystä -
#AFGPanel IMHO: Taliban's exercising caution, testing what they can get away + the bounds of the deal's "strategic ambiguity." They won’t pursue military objectives at all costs (i.e. if they think they'll risk the deal...which depends on the TB reading US signals correctly
)1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 7 tykkäystä -
#AFGPanel Here’s the thing: do the TB really need to "take" much territory militarily right now? If they can completely surround DAC so govt officials cannot leave, even to buy food? If they can plant white TB flags 20 feet from a police checkpoint and get away with it?1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 5 tykkäystä -
#AFGPanel And if the Taliban can move fairly freely in the district, without “taking” it? And set up fixed location sharia courts, open to all, on scheduled days of the week? And control land distribution? As@muzhary recently wrote about
https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/en/reports/economy-development-environment/one-land-two-rules-three-case-studies-on-taleban-sales-of-state-land/ …2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 8 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @a_a_jackson, @JJSchroden ja
The current level of territory control also allows Taliban to exercise a quasi total control on tax in rural areas, even in areas not under their control. 4 instance, they stop contractors impl. infra project on the road to make them pay their tax on the proj located in gvt area
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä
Vastauksena käyttäjille @AFalher, @JJSchroden ja
7.07 - 24. huhtik. 2020
0 vastausta
0 uudelleentwiittausta
1 tykkäys
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.