More than a year after that task force was created, sources say it has not sent any proposed goals to the Pentagon for approval, largely because without a presence on the ground, it has been unable to achieve enough intelligence targets to meet administration standards to avoid civilian casualties.
The White House has hailed the CIA operation that killed al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul on Saturday as evidence that the use of over-the-horizon counterterrorism capabilities in Afghanistan has been effective. Current and former officials say the success of Zawahiri’s attack certainly proves that with the right intelligence, the US is perfectly capable of engaging a specific target from afar, but those same sources also said that Zawahiri, a unique and high-value target for a long time The crosshairs of the CIA, was a special case that not only demonstrates the effectiveness of the strategy.
“There’s a difference between tracking a high-value target and dealing with the resurgence of these terrorist groups in Afghanistan,” said Beth Sanner, a former presidential intelligence adviser under President Donald Trump and Senior South Asia Analyst at the CIA. “It’s a whole different ball of wax.”
Some intelligence officials have publicly expressed concern that the terrorist activity incubated in Afghanistan is spreading beyond the country’s borders and posing a threat to the United States, and that the United States is not blind to it .
Asked directly by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, if he was concerned about an attack on the homeland “emanating from places like Afghanistan,” FBI Director Chris Wray said Thursday: “We are. Especially now that we’re out. I’m concerned about the possible loss of sources and collections there.”
“I am concerned about the possibility that Al Qaeda will reconstitute itself,” he added.
Hinting how far the obstacles have gone, some intelligence and military officials who were not involved in the tight planning details of Operation Zawahiri were pleasantly surprised that the US could still successfully carry out a precision strike, according to a former intelligence official still in touch with former colleagues.
Administration officials say, instead, Zawahiri’s attack is proof 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 attack say 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 even a week ago because of what he just enabled that collection, which was a pretty remarkable and precise action,” a senior administration official told CNN on Friday.
“The fact that there haven’t been any other uses of force like this in the past year means that we’re being vigilant and we’re being cautious, and where we think it’s getting to the point where we need to act, we’re acting.” , the official said. “But I think it’s a pretty powerful demonstration of what this capability can provide.”
The United States 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 Gulf are logistically complicated and have limited hover time in Afghanistan due to the long flight, making them expensive to operate and limiting their usefulness. And without a US presence on the ground, intelligence professionals expect that human networks could degrade over time.
“I think we don’t know what we don’t know,” said one former official.
difficult questions
For now, there is broad consensus within the intelligence community that the immediate threat that al Qaeda could use Afghanistan as a safe haven to plan attacks on 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. “Will the Taliban actually let AQ use Afghanistan?” a source familiar with the intelligence said.
“There are a lot of factors that go into this debate,” this person said. “And everything complicated.”
The intelligence community in its annual threat assessment released this year rates the threat posed by al Qaeda affiliates in Yemen, Somalia and West Africa as the greatest risk to U.S. interests in the ‘foreign that his leadership weakened in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, officials believe, is still gauging its ability to operate under Taliban rule and will likely remain focused on maintaining its safe haven rather than planning external operations, at least for now.
And while al Qaeda leaders have enjoyed “greater freedom of action” under the Taliban, according to a recent UN report, there has been no significant influx of new fighters into Afghanistan since of the withdrawal of the United States, a reflection of how Al Qaeda has evolved. centrally 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 has happened is some sort of regrowth [or] regeneration of an operational Al Qaeda presence, even with less famous names [than Zawahiri]” the senior administration official said.
There is a school of thought that, while some elements of the Taliban may feel compelled to uphold their oath to protect members of the al Qaeda old guard like Zawahiri, they have no obligation or incentive to welcome to a new generation of fighters. And according to intelligence officials, few members of al Qaeda’s original leadership remain in Afghanistan, and none are likely to replace Zawahiri.
Meanwhile, the recent strike, some analysts argue, may deter terrorist leaders from traveling to the country from elsewhere. They argue that the far greater risk is al-Qaeda affiliates in Africa and elsewhere who are only loosely connected to core leaders in Afghanistan.
“There are people who are very concerned,” said Sanner, who is now a CNN contributor. “I personally think that the core of AQ in Afghanistan doesn’t do a lot of operational planning.”
Others assess that it is more likely that the Taliban, consumed with trying to legitimize their government amid a financial implosion and an ongoing conflict with ISIS-K, simply do not have the bandwidth to prevent Afghanistan from being used by Al Qaeda or its affiliates. to plan attacks on the United States. There is also concern that the remnants of Al Qaeda could be absorbed by the Taliban.
The UN report found a “close relationship” between Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
How the Taliban respond
How the Taliban responds to Zawahiri’s death remains an open question, and one that intelligence and military officials are watching closely, several officials said.
According to a source familiar with the intelligence, US intelligence is unclear how many people in the Taliban knew that Zawahiri was holed up 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 they were aware of their presence before the strike, and analysts are watching closely to see if their exposure leads to any 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,” a Taliban statement said.
White House officials said Monday that senior Haqqani Taliban figures were aware of Zawahiri’s presence in the area and even took steps to conceal his presence after Saturday’s successful strike, restricting access to the safe house and quickly moving his family members, including his daughter and sons.
“As far as we know, many people in the Taliban did not know that the Haqqani were sheltering Zawahiri in Kabul. “Does this create a split 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 also to get their story straight about what happened.”
Some U.S. military officials, meanwhile, hope the attack could help push the Taliban toward some kind of limited cooperation with the U.S. to attack ISIS-K, a common enemy and a separate terrorist group in Afghanistan that ‘American army is much more concerned. than Al Qaeda, according to two sources familiar with the dynamics.
“I think it was a symbolic strike that removed an inspirational leader,” Sanner said. “It completes the task of taking out the two people who were at the center of 9/11. But it’s the end of an era, it’s not a current threat.”