P.O.Box 21375, Washington, D.C. 20009

Opposition Lacks Will & Ability To Fight, Says Taliban Culture Minister

July 27, 2026
Afghanistan International
27 July 2026

The Taliban’s information and culture minister, Sher Ahmad Haqqani, discussed the group’s recent clashes with opposition forces in Badakhshan during a meeting with media officials in Kabul.

Referring to recent developments in Badakhshan, Haqqani said every war should be examined from five perspectives.

He said it was first necessary to identify the attackers and their financiers, determine who was providing them with shelter, establish their objectives and assess how much local support they had in the areas where they were fighting.

The Taliban’s information and culture minister said an examination of these factors showed that “in reality, nothing has happened”.

Haqqani claimed the Taliban administration could prove to the public, “even to opponents and foreigners”, that conditions in Afghanistan were better than before and that “the people are happy and satisfied”.

Speaking on Monday, 27 July, following opposition attacks in Badakhshan, Haqqani described the situation in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as good and unprecedented.

He also claimed that the public was cooperating with the Taliban administration.

In his speech, Haqqani referred to Taliban opponents as “murderers, highway robbers and oppressors” and claimed they had no public support.

His remarks come as political and military groups opposed to the Taliban have carried out offensive operations in north-eastern Afghanistan, particularly in Badakhshan, in recent days.

The attacks began last week when the newly formed Sepah-e Mihan Front briefly seized Yaftal district for several hours.

The Afghanistan Freedom Front has also continued attacks against Taliban forces in Zebak district of Badakhshan.

The front says it has carried out continuous attacks over the past four days and destroyed two Taliban drones.

On Sunday, the Afghanistan Freedom Front claimed that its forces had advanced five kilometres towards the centre of Zebak district and captured two more Taliban posts.

Opposition Lacks Will & Ability To Fight, Says Taliban Culture Minister
read more

Bipartisan Plan to Extend Temporary Protected Status for Afghans in the US

July 25, 2026
Bibi Amina Hakimi
TOLOnews’ Reporter
25 July 2026

if passed, the bill would prevent eligible Afghans from being deported and allow them to continue living and working in the United States.

A group of Democratic and Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced bipartisan legislation to extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghan nationals.

if passed, the bill would prevent eligible Afghans from being deported and allow them to continue living and working in the United States.

Under the proposed legislation, eligible Afghan nationals currently residing in the U.S. would remain protected from deportation and retain work authorization. The extension would remain in effect until July 1, 2029.

Rep. Jason Crow said:”This bill would extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghan nationals through July 2029. TPS allows foreign nationals fleeing violence, conflict, and instability to live and work in the United States.”

Meanwhile, The Washington Post has reported that some Afghan immigrants and human rights advocates in the United States have expressed concern over a federal government plan to interview about 800 Afghan immigrants.

According to the report, the interviews will include questions about applicants’ identities, their integration into American society, and the immigration status of their family members. The information collected could be retained for up to 15 years.

Mohammad Khan Talebi Mohammadzai, a migrant rights advocate, said:”Legally, such interviews are permitted under U.S. immigration law. However, they must be conducted in accordance with privacy protections, non-discrimination principles, proportional data collection, and safeguards for migrants’ legal rights.”

Some analysts also say that Afghans with pending immigration cases in the United States should not become entangled in political issues and that Washington should facilitate their relocation process.

Mohammad Aslam Danishmal, a university professor, said: “For Afghans waiting for U.S. visas in Qatar, Pakistan, or other countries in the region, the U.S. government should seriously address their cases. These issues should not be politicized.”

The development comes after the U.S. government previously suspended the processing of all green card (permanent residency) applications from nationals of 19 countries, including Afghanistan, whose entry into the United States has been restricted.

Bipartisan Plan to Extend Temporary Protected Status for Afghans in the US
read more

Pakistan Says Terrorism from Afghanistan Among Its Most Serious Security Challenges

July 25, 2026
By Fidel Rahmati
Khaama Press

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Muhammad Ishaq Dar has described terrorism originating from Afghanistan as one of the country’s most serious security challenges, calling for stronger regional efforts to address the threat.

Dawn reported on Friday, July 24, that Dar made the remarks during a meeting of foreign ministers from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in Kyrgyzstan.

According to the report, Dar said lasting peace and stability in the region could not be achieved without addressing what he described as the threat of terrorism emanating from Afghanistan.

Dar alleged that militant groups continue to recruit, train and operate from Afghanistan territory under the “oversight and facilitation” of Taliban authorities. He also claimed that Afghan nationals have been involved in terrorist attacks in Pakistan, although he did not provide further details or evidence for the allegations in the reported remarks.

Pakistan has repeatedly accused the Taliban authorities of allowing anti-Pakistan militant groups to operate from Afghanistan territory. Islamabad has particularly raised concerns over the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which it blames for a series of attacks inside the country.

The Taliban authorities have consistently rejected allegations that they provide shelter or support to militant groups seeking to carry out attacks against Pakistan or other countries. Taliban officials have said Afghanistan’s territory will not be used to threaten any foreign state.

The issue remains a major source of tension between Kabul and Islamabad. Pakistan has repeatedly urged the Taliban authorities to take action against militants it says are based in Afghanistan, while the Taliban has denied the allegations and called for dialogue to resolve security concerns.

Dar’s remarks come as Pakistan continues to raise the issue of cross-border militancy at regional and international forums. Relations between the two neighbouring countries remain strained by security concerns, border tensions and disagreements over the status and movement of Afghan nationals in Pakistan.

Pakistan Says Terrorism from Afghanistan Among Its Most Serious Security Challenges
read more

German Court Blocks Mass Cancellation of Afghan Resettlement Cases

July 24, 2026
Khaama Press
Photo/Getty Images.

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the government cannot collectively cancel previously issued resettlement commitments to Afghan nationals and must assess each affected case individually.

The ruling followed a complaint by an Afghan woman and her two sons, who had been selected for relocation to Germany under the country’s humanitarian admission program after the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan in 2021.

The court ruled that the Interior Ministry’s decision in December 2025 to end the program and cancel about 640 remaining commitments without examining the individual circumstances of those affected violated the constitutional prohibition against arbitrary state action.

The judges said the government has broad powers to determine immigration policy but must exercise those powers within the limits of Germany’s Basic Law.

Once German authorities formally inform a person that they have been accepted for admission to Germany, any decision to withdraw that commitment must be based on an assessment of the individual’s circumstances, the court said. A blanket decision affecting a group of applicants is not sufficient.

The court also ordered the competent administrative court to reconsider the Afghan family’s case.

Until the family receives visas or a new decision is issued that complies with constitutional requirements, the German government must continue providing financial support, according to the ruling. The family is currently in Pakistan, where Germany is covering the costs of accommodation and support.

The decision comes as the German government seeks to reduce migration and restrict humanitarian admission programs. The ruling does not prevent Berlin from changing its immigration policies or ending programs for future applicants. It does, however, limit the government’s ability to cancel commitments already made to individuals through a single collective decision.

The judgment could have implications for other Afghan nationals selected under Germany’s humanitarian admission program whose cases remained unresolved after the government moved to end the scheme.

The court did not order Germany to admit every person affected by the cancelled commitments automatically. Instead, it required authorities to examine individual cases and ensure that any decision to withdraw a previous admission commitment complies with constitutional requirements.

The ruling therefore establishes an important legal distinction between changing future migration policy and withdrawing commitments already made to individuals. While the government retains broad authority over immigration policy, that authority cannot be exercised in a manner that ignores the individual circumstances of people who have already received formal assurances of admission.

German Court Blocks Mass Cancellation of Afghan Resettlement Cases
read more

Iran, Pakistan Discuss Regional Tensions, Reaffirm Commitment to Peace and Stability

July 24, 2026
Khaama Press

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Muhammad Ishaq Dar and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have discussed recent regional developments and escalating tensions in the Middle East, with Islamabad calling for restraint and a renewed focus on diplomatic engagement.

The Pakistani Foreign Ministry said on Friday, July 24, that Dar held talks with Araghchi on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Kyrgyzstan.

According to the ministry, Dar expressed concern over the recent escalation of tensions in the region and stressed the importance of restraint and diplomatic engagement to prevent further instability.

Dar also called for the United States and Iran to return to diplomacy based on the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, which was signed by Washington and Tehran in June.

The meeting comes as tensions between Iran and the United States have sharply escalated following a brief period of calm after the signing of the Islamabad understanding. The two sides have since returned to military confrontation, raising concerns about a wider regional conflict.

Pakistan has repeatedly called for dialogue and de-escalation amid rising tensions between Washington and Tehran. Islamabad has also warned of the potential consequences of continued conflict for regional security, trade and maritime routes, particularly around the strategically important Strait of Hormuz.

The latest diplomatic engagement comes as the Middle East remains tense, with military confrontations and competing security interests involving Iran, the United States and several Gulf countries. Any further escalation could affect energy supplies, international shipping and economic stability across the region.

The meeting between Dar and Araghchi underscores Pakistan’s efforts to encourage a return to negotiations at a time when diplomatic channels between Iran and the United States remain under severe strain.

Iran, Pakistan Discuss Regional Tensions, Reaffirm Commitment to Peace and Stability
read more

Araghchi at SCO: Afghanistan’s Stability ‘Strategic for Regional Security’

July 24, 2026
TOLOnews
TV Network
24 July 2026

Araghchi said Iran supports any initiative aimed at creating a stable Afghanistan and called for an end to tensions and clashes between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) foreign ministers’ meeting in Kyrgyzstan that Afghanistan’s stability and security are among the region’s most important shared security and development issues, adding that Afghanistan’s security is of strategic importance to all countries in the region.

Referring to Tehran’s historical and cultural ties with Afghanistan, Araghchi said Iran supports any initiative aimed at creating a stable Afghanistan and called for an end to tensions and clashes between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Abbas Araghchi, Iranian Foreign Minister, said: “We support any initiative that contributes to the establishment of a secure, stable, developed, and terrorism-free Afghanistan with an inclusive government. We also particularly call for an end to tensions and conflict between Afghanistan and our friendly and brotherly country, Pakistan.”

Political analyst Najibullah Bahadur said that Afghanistan’s stability and security are in the interest of regional countries and the wider world, particularly Iran, given the challenges it currently faces.

At the same meeting, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar also described Afghanistan’s stability as important. However, during his remarks, he reiterated Pakistan’s longstanding allegations regarding Afghanistan.

Ishaq Dar, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, said: “Pakistan has always wanted, and continues to want, a peaceful, stable, prosperous, and regionally integrated Afghanistan—one that is at peace with itself and with its neighbors. This is in the interest of all SCO member states and beyond. At present, the terrorist threat emanating from Afghanistan remains one of our most serious security challenges.”

The remarks came as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan once again had no representative at the SCO foreign ministers’ meeting.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization has 10 full members: China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Belarus. Afghanistan holds observer status in the organization.

Araghchi at SCO: Afghanistan’s Stability ‘Strategic for Regional Security’
read more

Federal agency seeks to interview Afghan immigrants, alarming refugee groups

July 24, 2026
By 

The Washington Post

July 24, 2026 
A federal refugee resettlement office is quietly launching an effort to interview hundreds of Afghan immigrants living in the United States, raising alarms among refugee groups who worry the information they collect could be used for future immigration enforcement.
An internal email sent to staff in the Office of Refugee Resettlement on July 14 and reviewed by The Washington Post called for volunteers to conduct outreach calls to 800 Afghans who were brought to the U.S. in recent years and “may be in vulnerable situations.”

A questionnaire for the effort — called the Refugee Outreach and Wellbeing Initiative — shows the agency will gather detailed information about household members, including their names, jobs, languages spoken and immigration status.

Some refugee groups expressed concern at the idea because the Trump administration has taken steps to strip Afghans in the U.S. of legal status as part of the president’s broader immigration crackdown, a dramatic reversal of President Joe Biden’s welcome of more than 88,000 Afghans fleeing the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021.

“This is one of the most vulnerable groups, with nearly every pathway closed to them and dwindling hope for reuniting with their families,” Beth Oppenheim, CEO of the refugee resettlement group HIAS, said in a statement. “The idea of collecting data on this population is something that could erode trust, particularly in a moment that feels precarious for so many.”

The questionnaire says the information collected will be used to “identify common challenges” and assess whether additional resources or support may be needed. The email said the push would run through Aug. 7, with calls expected to take 30 minutes each.

ORR, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Nearly five years have passed since Biden’s chaotic exit from the two-decade conflict in Afghanistan and scramble to evacuate Afghans who aided the U.S. military during that time.

“If the federal government wants to check on the well-being of Afghan families, it can do that without turning the process into a backdoor deportation operation,” he said.

ORR officials discussed the plan with refugee resettlement organizations in late May, according to two people familiar with the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share details of the conversation. The officials said the effort would target people without permanent status.

Angie Salazar, the acting director of ORR, is a former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official. She faced criticism from Democrats last year over her role in an effort to quickly deport unaccompanied children to Guatemala over a holiday weekend, a furtive operation that was blocked by a federal judge.

The questionnaire to be read to Afghan immigrants over the phone includes a consent notice that emphasizes the survey is not anonymous and that information may be retained for 15 years.

“There are minimal risks to participating in this survey. Some questions ask about challenges or difficult experiences, which may feel uncomfortable,” it reads. “You may skip any question you prefer not to answer.”

A section of the questionnaire titled “Assimilation and Integration” asks Afghans how well they feel they have adjusted to life in the United States, ranging from “very well” to “very poorly.”

In addition to asking for the immigration status of each household member, it requests the government-issued “alien number” for anyone in the household who may need additional support or be eligible for government benefits.

President Donald Trump suspended the issuance of all immigrant and nonimmigrant visas from Afghanistan as part of a broader travel ban in 2025.

A month later, his administration ended temporary protected status for some 12,000 Afghans who had been granted permission to live and work in the U.S. legally. In the termination notice, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem said security and economic conditions had improved in Afghanistan enough to allow them to safely return.

The U.S. State Department currently advises U.S. citizens not to travel to Afghanistan due to the risk of civil unrest, terrorism, crime and kidnapping.

After an Afghan immigrant was accused of shooting two National Guard members blocks away from the White House in November, killing one and badly injuring another, the administration halted the processing of any pending Afghan immigration applications.

ORR first conducted outreach as part of its well-being initiatives in March, attempting to contact 1,800 White South Africans brought to the U.S. through the refugee resettlement program, a U.S. official said on condition of anonymity to share internal figures. But White South Africans entering as refugees — a priority group for Trump — have access to permanent residence and would not face the same risk of deportation.

Federal agency seeks to interview Afghan immigrants, alarming refugee groups
read more

BBC Buys ‘Kabul’ Drama Series About American Withdrawal From Afghanistan Starring The Late Eric Dane

July 24, 2026
By Max Goldbart
Deadline / Hollywood
International TV Co-Editor
July 24, 2026
'Kabul BBC series
L-R: Hannah Abdoh as Amina and Sara Taheri as Nooria.Domniki Mitropoulou – Cinétévé – 24 25 Films – France Télévisions
The BBC has acquired the upcoming series Kabul set against the backdrop of the terrifying real-life events in Afghanistan from 2021, one of the last shows to star the late Eric Dane.

The Mediawan drama for the European Alliance of broadcasters kicks off as American troops withdraw from Kabul and the Taliban enters the city. The Nazany family, like many civilians, is forced to flee, fearing retaliation. In this desperate and chaotic situation – shadowed by the looming threat of an attack by ISIS – French police officers, Italian diplomats, German military personnel, and American intelligence services must somehow coordinate to manage the influx of civilians.

Dane plays Martin. The supremely talented Euphoria and Grey’s Anatomy star died earlier this year. The international cast also includes Darina Al Joundi (The New Look), Shervin Alenabi (Tehran), Vassilis Koukalani (Kandahar), Hannah Abdoh, Jonathan Zaccaï (Le bureau des legends), Gianmarco Saurino (L’estate piu Calda) and Jeanne Goursaud (Pax Massilia).

The show, which lands on the BBC next month, is produced by Mediawan and sold by Mediawan Rights is for the European Alliance of broadcasters which comprises ZDF, Rai and France Télévisions. The BBC isn’t technically part of the Alliance but has previously been involved with shows like the adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days.

Nick Lee, Head of BBC Programme Acquisition, said: “Kabul is a tragedy of the highest stakes. A warzone story which is propelled by the real ticking clock of the evacuation that was just five years ago this summer. Global politics remain complex, but Kabul dramatises the biggest view of history through the smallest window of a human family.”

Kabul was directed by Kasia Adamik (No Escape) and Olga Chajdas (Imago) and written by Olivier Demangel (Class Act), Thomas Finkielkraut (Baron Noir) and Joey Lavy (The Shift). The series was produced by Fabienne Servan-Schreiber and Charlotte Ortiz at Cinétévé, Matthias Weber and Thibault Gast at 24 25 Films, and executive produced by Sandrine Paquot. Global sales are handled by Mediawan Rights.

BBC Buys ‘Kabul’ Drama Series About American Withdrawal From Afghanistan Starring The Late Eric Dane
read more

Why I Sought Out a Taliban Commander I Had Fought

July 24, 2026
By Thomas Gibbons-Neff

Thomas Gibbons-Neff is a former New York Times reporter who covered the wars in Afghanistan and Ukraine. He traveled to Kabul, Afghanistan, in May.

The New York Times

July 23, 2026

First as a Marine and then as a journalist, I spent years tied to Afghanistan. I returned one last time to speak to a former enemy in search of answers, and perhaps closure.

I’ve had a hand in killing around six people. Maybe seven. I don’t know if one man bled out on the side of the road or was taken to a doctor. I think about him often.

The killings occurred in the winter and spring of early 2010, during one of the largest operations of the Afghanistan war: the battle of Marja. I was the 22-year-old leader of a scout sniper team of seven Marines and one Navy corpsman.

It is a strange thing, having killed people in a conflict that spanned 20 years and was ultimately lost. The sum of such an intense expenditure of human lives and trauma left Afghanistan much as it was in 2001, before any American boots touched the ground.

Killing in war often boils down to an us-or-them mentality, a defensible position common to infantry combat. But we were also directed to “win hearts and minds,” the U.S. strategy meant to earn the population’s trust and isolate the Taliban. Trying to build good will while engaging in gunfights beside people’s homes was profoundly confusing. The killing wasn’t detached; it felt deeply personal.

We also had a twisted culture in which killing earned you respect, as if shooting Afghans was the ultimate proof that you were competent. So we killed people. I killed people. These decisions to pull the trigger were the final steps of our part in a strategy that was doomed before I even deployed.

The Taliban, with their exclusion of women from public life and violent treatment of ethniminorities, fractured Afghan society. During its 20-year occupation, the United States often used this as a justification to prolong the war, even as it rarely addressed its strategic and moral failures or the pain and loss it was causing so many Afghans.

My journalism career — which began after I left the Marine Corps — revolved around trying to understand why this bloody cycle continued. Reporting was a way to roll back time and understand what I had done and what role I played in a conflict that was far from over. The more I saw, the more I learned, the more my contribution to this mess in my early 20s left me with a sense of shame.

But in May, with a little over two weeks remaining at The New York Times before returning to school to become an English teacher, I landed in Afghanistan. I had come to speak with the people I once fought against: the Taliban.

My thinking was straightforward. Even if the Pentagon would not undertake any significant reflection for these recent decades of war, I could, at a minimum, hold myself accountable for my part in a half-baked strategy that left tens of thousands of Afghans and Americans dead.

I brought souvenirs from a gift shop near my home in Rhode Island, which I would present to a few Taliban officials whom I have known for nearly a half decade now. Hearts and minds, after all, though this time as a guest not an occupier.

Ultimately, I wanted to talk to Mullah Abdul Rahim Gulab, a Taliban commander whom I met by chance in 2021, just months after Kabul fell to the Taliban. But we had also fought against one another in February 2010 in southern Afghanistan.

I knew he would have a version of the battle in Marja that was different from mine. Maybe he had stories with his own heroes and dead friends that I could appreciate and respect, ones that he also couldn’t stop thinking about. Maybe I could feel bad for him and not just feel bad for living while my friends died.

Read Thomas’s dispatch from when he first met Mullah Abdul Rahim Gulab.

When I landed in Kabul in May, a Taliban deputy minister at the ministry of information and culture named Muhajer Farahi wanted to talk to me after he saw the request I submitted to speak to Mr. Gulab.

We had not met before. But sitting across from me in his office, Mr. Farahi told me his reasons for fighting the United States were simple: He wanted the Americans out of his home.

He spoke slowly and quietly, and avoided eye contact. His English was good. He made clear that his time in Farah Province in southwestern Afghanistan during the war, or jihad, as the Taliban refer to their 20 year military campaign, was difficult.

“We were on the right side,” he said. “We were fighting for our faith.”

I apologized for his dead friends and the innocent people killed in the war. He looked at me and thought for a moment before reminding me that I was a soldier, a cog in a machine that decided to invade his country and stay. It was as close as I would get to a pardon.

He wanted to discuss other things. Mostly he was curious about the number of Americans he had killed, and was still perplexed that even though he watched roadside bombs detonate under our armored vehicles, our casualty announcements from the Pentagon were relatively low. He assumed the United States lied about its death tolls.

I explained the complicated web of emergency care that was a quick helicopter flight away. He didn’t seem convinced. Instead he said something that most Talibs have echoed when discussing my time as a Marine: Don’t try to invade again.

I assured him that the United States appeared to have moved on, but he raised the latest wars in which the country had embroiled itself.

“You haven’t learned,” he said. “Look at Iran and Gaza — you are fighting for the Israelis. You don’t care about human rights.” He blamed the American people for voting a long line of presidents into power who started and continued the so-called forever wars.

As I walked into the blinding light of downtown Kabul, I felt what could only be described as a strange sense of relief. I had been lectured, yes, but on the edges it felt as if there was some acknowledgment of our humanity.

That felt like enough, for now. It was time to talk to Mr. Gulab.

When I interviewed Mr. Gulab in 2021, I didn’t disclose that I had been a Marine. I questioned him as a reporter about his fighting days. He confirmed things I knew: how he and his peers would drop their weapons and greet us as friends on the streets, and that they relied on children to track our footprints to our makeshift outposts.

These had been hard facts for me to confront back in 2010, and still resonated when spoken in hindsight by a victorious insurgent, a hometown fighter who leveraged cunning to defeat us, even though we were far better armed than his band of 20 men. His tactics had formed a puzzle I navigated on every patrol so that I could survive the day. Some of my friends didn’t.

When I first met Mr. Gulab, I walked to a mud brick wall in Marja as a journalist. As a Marine more than a decade before, I had shot a young man in the head in this exact spot. I remembered the last glimpse of his face before the crack of my bolt-action rifle. My brain didn’t compute that I had killed him until later, when someone told me they had found his body dragged behind a corner with his weapon.

I joined the Marines because my dad was a Vietnam veteran who rarely spoke about the war, and because I was a short kid who grew up in a nice town and went to a nice public high school and wanted to prove myself.

In May, when I reached Mr. Gulab again, this time by phone, I told him the truth about my background: I wasn’t just a journalist, I had fought in Marja as a Marine. He said he had realized that when we first met, given the specificity of my questions.

He wondered what I wanted now: “What’s the point in talking again?”

Mr. Gulab had won his war and closed that chapter with the United States long before I did. Now he was preparing to fight another conflict, this time against Pakistan. He led a large Afghan Army unit from a base that is still known as Camp Dwyer, where I had flown from in 2010 to fight him and his mujahedeen troops.

Our conference call began with pleasantries before his reticence lifted, and he was willing to talk about the beginning of the Marja operation. I was curious about his side of our shared experiences, including the fate of a Taliban sniper whom Mr. Gulab would have known, or at least heard about.

That sniper had shot two of my Marines, including my assistant team leader, on the first day of the battle. It was dusk. We were on the roof of a two-story building, the only structure that high for miles. I remember what sounded like a baseball bat hitting uncooked meat. I looked up to see my friend Matt screaming. He had been shot in the arm. A week or so later we drove that sniper into an orchard, where a drone strike presumably killed him. But 16 years later, I still wanted to know for sure.

Mr. Gulab started to speak but was cut off by his minder, who said curtly that sharing such details was illegal. Instead, Mr. Gulab had questions of his own, involving that same sniper. He said he was nearby when my teammates were hit and remembered reports that two “foreigners” had been shot on that roof and fallen off.

“Did they die?” he asked.

“Why do many American soldiers who fought in Afghanistan and later returned to their country commit suicide?” Mr. Gulab asked. “I have heard this many times. What is the reason?”

It was a question that haunts many of us. I tried to explain how we carried the crushing weight of our own shattered expectations: We had grown up on the nostalgia of World War II, then done something we were supposed to be proud of. Instead, what we got from our politicians and generals were evasions and lies. Our commanders could never articulate how our deployments, and all the violence we committed and the losses we suffered, made anyone safer in the United States.

We were left to figure everything out on our own while they landed lucrative jobs at defense companies and collected big fees on speaking circuits. For some people, it was too much to handle.

Mr. Gulab’s years after the war had been nothing like that, he said. “Our mujahedeen are the opposite, because of the jihad they carried out and because of the friends they lost, they are very happy, because our jihad had a clear goal.”

“Regarding your apology,” he said, “I should say that at that time our jihad was for the sake of Allah, and we were not worried about being killed or wounded. We are also not upset about our friends who were killed or wounded, because all of us wished to be martyred or injured on the path of jihad. Since the conditions at that time were wartime conditions, civilians were often killed or wounded.”

I wished that I, too, could accept the deaths of my friends and the results of my own actions instead of inhabiting a fog of anger and bitterness over wasted youth. Mr. Gulab let me know that such sentiments existed in Afghanistan, too.

“Regarding the mujahedeen who were killed by your side, I do not know whether they or their families would forgive you,” Mr. Gulab said. “Those civilians may not forgive the foreign forces, but for me personally, I have my own authority and I have forgiven you.”

I first set foot in Afghanistan as a 20-year-old lance corporal in 2008. The Taliban were shadows in a tree line then, and characters that appeared in my nightmares as I tried to stay alive. In August 2021, I watched them shake hands with a squad of U.S. Marines as the Afghan Army evaporated, Kabul fell and my war was finally, fully lost.

Now my one-time enemy generously offered a kind of coda to a line I wrote in my journal on that first deployment 18 years ago: “It’s hard to explain this place and I feel it’s going to take the rest of my life to figure out what happened here.”

Boarding my flight back to the United States, I realized a pervasive sadness lingered in the corners of my mind. I was tired, as if litigating my war again had somehow restarted it. Mr. Gulab and I were, at one point in our lives, two people, barely men at the time, fighting for vastly different reasons. Maybe it was enough that I saw him now more, in some twisted way, as a friend than my enemy.

Some days later in Rhode Island, as I walked my dog on a muggy New England night, my phone vibrated.

Mr. Gulab had texted me in Pashto: “Have you arrived at your home?” he asked.

I said I had.

“It’s good to hear that you arrived safely.”

Why I Sought Out a Taliban Commander I Had Fought
read more

Top German court says Afghan resettlement pledges cannot be revoked en masse

July 24, 2026

By  and 

Reuters

  • Officials must review each Afghan resettlement case individually, court says
  • Berlin must keep supporting the family in Pakistan until visas issued or a lawful new decision
  • Rights group says about 30 similar constitutional cases pending
BERLIN, July 24 (Reuters) – Germany’s top court ruled on Friday that the government could not simply cancel an entire swathe of resettlement places promised to Afghans, and that each case must be considered individually.
The Constitutional Court backed a complaint by ​an Afghan mother and her two sons who had been selected in 2021 for admission ​to Germany under a “human rights list” set up by the previous government after the ⁠Taliban returned to power.

Make sense of global markets with the Trading Day newsletter. Sign up here.

The decision by the current interior ministry to end the scheme in December 2025, voiding ​about 640 such promises without examining the individual cases, breached a constitutional ban on arbitrary state action, it ​said.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government imposed tougher controls when it took power last year, as support for the anti-immigration AfD party surged in the wake of former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to admit around 1 million asylum seekers from countries including Syria ​and Afghanistan.
The admission programmes have been politically contentious, with security officials repeatedly raising concerns that some applicants’ identities ​could not be conclusively verified or that false information had been provided.
Human rights groups, meanwhile, have accused the ministry of ‌trying ⁠to undermine admissions for vulnerable Afghans.

RIGHTS GROUP WELCOMES RULING

The government retains broad discretion over whether to admit foreigners under Germany’s residence law and may still decide not to admit the complainants, the court said.
However, it said any reversal of a previous commitment must take account of the individuals’ circumstances.
The ruling sends the case back ​to Berlin’s higher administrative court ​for reconsideration.
The interior ministry ⁠is now awaiting that court’s decision, a spokesperson said.
The Afghan woman and her family are currently staying in Pakistan, where they have been receiving support funded ​by Germany.
The court ruled that Berlin must continue supporting them in Pakistan until ​visas are issued ⁠or the ministry makes a new decision that is compliant with the constitution.
.
Germany’s Society for Civil Rights, which developed the model constitutional complaint on which the woman’s case was based, welcomed the ruling.
“This is good news for ⁠fundamental rights, ​but it is not enough,” lawyer Mareile Dedekind said in ​a statement.
“Germany must finally bring those seeking protection to safety from torture and death.”
The rights group said that around 30 similar cases were ​still pending before the Constitutional Court.

Reporting by Kirsti Knolle, Markus Wacket and Miranda Murray; Editing by Alison Williams

Top German court says Afghan resettlement pledges cannot be revoked en masse
read more

Recent Posts