Escalation to bounties on US troops ‘beyond the pale’
Arms, cash flow from Russia to Afghanistan
Reports that Russia may have paid bounties to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan are the latest and perhaps most alarming accusations that Vladimir Putin’s government is intent on damaging American interests there and hastening a U.S. withdrawal.
Russian support for the Taliban has been apparent for at least two years. Small arms and cash from Russia have been trickling into Afghanistan, according to a U.S. official familiar with intelligence reports but not authorized to speak publicly.
In 2018, the outgoing commander of U.S. and NATO forces, Army Gen. John Nicholson, called out the Russians publicly on the shipments of cash and weapons, a charge the Russians denied.
A Pentagon report last week suggested a motive for Russian meddling: prevention “of a long-term U.S. military presence” in Afghanistan.
The report noted that Russia supports the peace deal the Trump administration has pursued that would allow a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces that have been in Afghanistan since 2001.
The report says Putin’s government sought deeper ties with Taliban insurgents.
It’s possible, experts said, that Putin miscalculated the reaction to paying Taliban fighters to kill U.S. troops, given the enormous downside when the alleged scheme was reported, the official said.
“If true, it’s another dumb move, overreach by Putin,” said Mark Quantock, a retired Army two-star general and former head of intelligence for U.S. Central Command. “The (Taliban) doesn’t need to be incentivized to target U.S. troops.”
The return on investment would be minimal, Quantock said, and the downside immense for Putin. Russian-paid bounties would almost guarantee a bipartisan response in Congress for sanctions against Russia.
The relationship is under scrutiny after reports in The New York Times and other outlets that Russian intelligence agents may have offered money and other forms of support to the Taliban in exchange for killing U.S. or coalition troops in Afghanistan.
The Taliban and Russian officials vehemently deny the allegations.
“If true, it’s another dumb move, overreach by Putin.” Mark Quantock, former head of intelligence for U.S. Central Command
Russian interference is not new
The United States and Russia have a long, tangled history in Afghanistan, stretching back to the Cold War.
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to prop up a communistled government, leading to alarm among American officials who decided to intervene. During the Reagan administration, the United States helped resistance fighters known as the mujahedeen, sending them anti-aircraft missiles and other assistance.
In part because of America’s involvement, the Afghan conflict became a quagmire for the Soviets, costing Moscow billions of dollars and dealing a blow to the reputation of its army. Russia withdrew in the late 1980s.
The war left more than 15,000 Soviet soldiers dead. Putin has not forgotten.
After the 9/11 attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan, and Russia was initially on board with the U.S. mission to drive al-Qaida and other terrorists out of the country. In recent years, Russia’s goals have turned against the United States.
“The stories of Russian interference in Afghanistan are not new,” said Max Abrahms, a global security expert at Northeastern University in Boston. “Militants in Afghanistan have long reported that the Russians are trying to make the U.S. presence more difficult.”
Abrahms said Afghanistan is home to multiple militant groups “all of which detest the United States.” He said that “we don’t have a good understanding of where each organization starts and stops,” but that the main state sponsor of actions in Afghanistan against American troops is not Russia, but Pakistan. Iran is also active in the area.
In recent years, Washington has repeatedly accused Pakistan of providing a safe haven to the Haqqani network, a Taliban affiliate that has been blamed for major attacks in the nation.
Abrahms noted that Russia’s alleged actions resemble American ones: When the U.S. supported the militants in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan War that ended in 1989, they killed Russian troops. Some members of these U.S.-backed militants – the mujahideen – later formed the Taliban. Bin Laden was among them.
Before the White House signed a peace deal with the Taliban this year, the United States was losing ground to the Taliban. Trump vowed to end U.S. involvement there, viewing the conflict as an “endless war” that drained American blood and treasure.
‘Dissenting opinions’
The White House said Trump was not “personally briefed” on the Russian bounty intelligence because there were “dissenting opinions” among intelligence officials about its credibility. Trump called the claim that he was briefed and didn’t do anything about it “fake news.”
Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., a former CIA officer, said the allegation that Russia deliberately tried to harm U.S. troops by offering “bounties” fits into its Cold War mentality and aggression against democracies, particularly the USA. She said it’s definitely a grave escalation.
“The notion that they would actually take this step of putting a price on the head of Americans is – it’s just beyond the pale,” she said.
Carol Rollie Flynn, a 30-year CIA veteran who is president of the Foreign Policy Research Institute think tank, said the idea that Russia would pursue such an operation is so outlandish she wondered whether it is credible.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the Pentagon has no “corroborating evidence” to validate the allegations of Russian bounties, but he takes threats against troops seriously.
Some Senate Republicans rallied behind Trump, but Russia’s action, if proved, could provoke a bipartisan response from Congress, in the form of sanctions or other measures against Moscow.
Quantock said that any intelligence on bounties for U.S. troops would certainly reach the president, probably via the President’s Daily Brief. That means Trump either failed to read the report or discounted its significance, he said.
“Either way, he should have known about and acted upon it,” Quantock said. “It’s a sad commentary on the (president) from every angle,” he said.