How Pakistan took the fight to Isis-K – and won Trump's praise
Pakistan 's intelligence chief with a plea: help us bring those behind Kabul's Abbey Gate bombing – an attack that killed 170 Afghan civilians and 13 American soldiers – to justice.
Advertisement
What followed was a sweeping seven-month operation that spanned intelligence networks across 21 nations, culminating in the arrest of Mohammad Sharifullah and 38 others. It was a victory that has thrust Pakistan back into the global spotlight as an integral player in the fight against
Islamic State Khorasan , or Isis-K.
Russia ,
Led by Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) – whose director general Lieutenant General Asim Malik met Ratcliffe on the sidelines of a security conference in Germany to hatch the plan – the operation dismantled a key Isis-K 'external operations cell' responsible for some of the deadliest attacks in recent years, with its most dangerous operatives subsequently deported to countries including the
United States
Turkey and
Iran
The arrest of Sharifullah, an Afghan national who confessed to orchestrating the Abbey Gate suicide bombing during the chaotic
US withdrawal in August 2021 , marked a diplomatic victory for Islamabad and Washington.
US Marines are seen at Abbey Gate outside Kabul airport after a suicide bomber had detonated explosives in August 2021. Photo: US Department of Defence via AP
It prompted rare praise from US President
Donald Trump , who extended thanks on March 4 to Pakistan's government 'for helping arrest this monster' during
his first speech to Congress since retaking the presidency.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
4 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Breakneck divide: China's builders vs America's lawyers
Dan Wang has written a book that brings a new perspective to understanding the differences in style of government between China and the US and the barriers to mutual understanding. 'Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future' (W.W. Norton & Company, 2025) combines the conclusions of an economic analyst who spent the years from 2017 to 2023 living and working in China with the personal observations of a man whose Chinese parents took him to Canada when he was seven years old and who was educated in the US. Wang writes in his introduction: The starkest contrast between the two countries is the competition that will define the twenty-first century: an American elite, made up of mostly lawyers, excelling at obstruction, versus a Chinese technocratic class, made up of mostly engineers, that excels at construction. That's the big idea behind this book. It's time for a new lens to understand the two superpowers: China is an engineering state , building big at breakneck speed, in contrast to the United States' lawyerly society , blocking everything it can, good and bad. On his website, the author explains that his book is 'driven by a few simple ideas': That Americans and Chinese are fundamentally alike: restless, eager for shortcuts, ultimately driving most of the world's big changes. That their rivalry should not be reasoned through with worn-out terms from the past century like socialist, democratic or neoliberal. And that both countries are tangles of imperfection, regularly delivering – in the name of competition – self-beatings that go beyond the wildest dreams of the other. Wang describes himself as 'a Canadian who has spent almost equal amounts of time living in the United States and China.' This enables him to stand somewhat back from the hostility and resentment that have come to characterize the relationship between the two. He finds the two countries 'thrilling, maddening, and, most of all, deeply bizarre. Canada is tidy…. Drive around China and America, on the other hand, and you'll see people and places that are utterly deranged.' Wang moved to Philadelphia with his family when he was in high school and attended college in New York. After college, he went to Silicon Valley and then returned to China to study its rapid modernization. In China, Wang worked as a technology analyst at Gavkal Dragonomics, writing research reports and presenting his conclusions to investors. It was a job with demanding clients, but he also had a good time. Traveling around the country, he says, 'I grasped something that most Americans, and even many Chinese, do not: Going to little-known cities in China is fun . Wherever I went, I found amazing food, bizarre sights and memorable people.' He tried to capture those by writing an annual letter (you can read them on his website). 'The best hedge I know against heightening tensions between the two superpowers,' he writes, 'is mutual curiosity.' Wang has plenty of that, and it is contagious. A bicycle trip through the mountainous southwest province of Guizhou with two friends was full of surprises. Seven hours from Shanghai by high-speed train, Guizhou was once known as a place 'where not three feet of land is flat, where not three days pass without rain, and where not a family has three silver coins.' Today, it is still relatively poor, but crossed by highways and bridges that make a cycling trip possible, with shops selling noodles and ice cream bars for lunch and restaurants serving dinners of fish stew, braised goat, local pickles and salads and rice balls filled with sesame. Guizhou is home to the world's largest single-aperture radio telescope, known as 'China Sky Eye,' and Zheng'an county, which calls itself 'the guitar capital of the world.' According to China Daily, more than 2.25 million guitars are produced in Zheng'an every year, making it the world's largest center of guitar production. They aren't the world's best guitars, but China has displaced South Korea, which displaced Japan, as the world's largest producer of affordable guitars. Wang points out that 'Several of Guizhou's party chiefs have gone on to high positions in Beijing, including Hu Jintao, general secretary of the Communist Party before Xi Jinping. 'Chinese leaders,' he writes, 'are usually expected to administer a poor province before they can be promoted to the country's political pinnacle. In the United States, it would be as if politicians had to gain some experience in the Rust Belt or coal country before they could get anywhere near a cabinet position.' Incidentally, Ren Zhengfei, founder and CEO of Huawei, was born in Guizhou. Wang makes only a brief mention of Huawei in the book, but it is worth pointing out that Ren, too, started out as an engineer. So did Hu Jintao. 'Engineers,' writes Wang, 'have quite literally ruled modern China.… Xi Jinping studied chemical engineering at Tsinghua, China's top science university.' And: 'What do engineers like to do? Build.' A road network twice as long as that of the US, a high-speed rail network 20 times longer than Japan's, and nearly as much solar and wind power as the rest of the world combined. The problem is, they can't stop, applying their methods to social problems even when that it not appropriate. After an inspiring description of the rise of venture capital and high-tech manufacturing in Shenzhen, Wang turns his attention to the brutal enforcement of the one-child policy and the severe Covid lockdown that drove people to desperation. Judging from the severe criticism in these chapters, it was not surprising to me that Chinese censors shut down the website where he published his annual letters. (The chapters were written after the website was shut down.) Wang also sees things that other writers tend to miss. In politics, for example, Capitalist America intrudes upon the free market with a dense program of regulation and taxation.… Socialist China detains union leaders, levies light taxes, and provides a threadbare social safety net. The greatest trick that the Communist Party ever pulled off is masquerading as leftist. While Xi Jinping and the rest of the Politburo mouth Marxist pieties, the state is enacting a right-wing agenda that Western conservatives would salivate over. In the realm of technology, Wang writes, Americans celebrate invention, whereas for the Chinese, 'innovation emerges from the factory floor.' There are three aspects to technology: tools, recipes (blueprints, patents) and process knowledge, he says. The last, process knowledge, he terms 'proficiency gained from practical experience' – and that's the one that he considers most important of the three. This is what has brought Chinese manufacturing close to the levels achieved in Germany and Japan. It is also the Japanese way of doing things, although the Japanese, unlike the Chinese, have also won an impressive number of Nobel Prizes. China is now working hard to close that gap. And what about the American lawyer-led way of doing things? Wang chooses high-speed rail to make his point. In 2008, Californians voted to fund a high-speed rail link between San Francisco and Los Angeles. That same year, China began construction of a high-speed rail link between Beijing and Shanghai. Three years later, at a cost of US$36 billion, the Chinese railway was operational. Seventeen years later, only a quarter of the line in California has been built and the budget to completion is estimated at $128 billion. What happened? Lawyers happened. 'The United States … has a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers.… Americans no longer manufacture well or build public works on reasonable timetables.' The US was once, like China, an engineering state, building canals, the transcontinental railway and, not so long ago, the interstate highway system. Learning from China, therefore, would mean going back to American roots. And China, in Wang's view, could use some of the American lawyer's concern for the environment and civil rights. Breakneck will be published on August 26. Follow this writer on X: @ScottFo83517667
South China Morning Post
8 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
China report says US using human rights as ‘bargaining chip' in deeply unequal society
China has accused the United States of using human rights as a 'bargaining chip' in its latest annual report on the issue. The report released on Sunday criticised what it called the hypocrisy of the US political system, its unequal social welfare, widespread racism, and the politicisation of immigration, where immigrants become 'scapegoats for political parties'. The US had turned human rights into 'props for political theatre' and 'bargaining chips in power games', it alleged. The year 2024 was meant to be a defining moment for American citizens to exercise their political rights, the report stated, in an apparent reference to the US presidential elections. 'In reality, the year was fraught with political violence as politics was controlled by money, justice was hijacked by politics, and voters were disenfranchised by electoral rules.' 04:36 Trump vows to 'liberate' Los Angeles as protests spread to other major US cities Trump vows to 'liberate' Los Angeles as protests spread to other major US cities
AllAfrica
12 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Time for Europe to show courage
The Alaska summit was a great success for Vladimir Putin and for Donald Trump's love of theater, but a potential disaster for Ukraine and Europe. The most obvious feature was that Russia made no commitment to a ceasefire. But the most important was that America put no pressure at all on Russia to end the war, despite Trump having promised Europe that he would do so. It is true that few details have been revealed about what was discussed, still less agreed, between the Russian dictator and the American president, although some have leaked, confirming Europeans' worst fears about Putin's demands and about Trump's unwillingness to challenge him. More will doubtless emerge when Ukraine's President Volodymr Zelenskyy flies to Washington on Monday to meet Trump, and from conversations both men have with European leaders. Yet meanwhile we should reflect carefully and soberly on two revealing and menacing vignettes from the summit. The first was the arrival on American soil of Russia's long-serving foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, wearing a sweatshirt bearing the Cyrillic initials CCCP, which stood historically for the USSR. This was a brazen televisual means to assert that Russia still intends to rebuild the empire that was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Russia is undaunted, consistent and, by this symbolic moment of triumph in the former Russian imperial territory of Alaska, emboldened. The second vignette came in the one media interview Trump gave after the summit, to his sycophantic Fox News friend, Sean Hannity. In that interview, Trump put the onus back on Ukraine to make peace and exposed his true view of the conflict by emphasising that the Ukrainians are a small country facing what he called Russia's 'war machine.' Zelenskyy would be wise to capitulate now, was the implication, and America is not going to do anything serious to help it. What these vignettes also reveal is that Putin and Trump share a view of the world as consisting of a lot of weak countries but of three superpowers, to which special rules apply. It is the world as described more than two millennia ago by the Greek historian Thucydides, in which 'the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.' While such realpolitik never completely went away, the whole point of the United Nations Charter of 1945, the body of international law which followed and the collective efforts of the West was to constrain the use of military power and to protect smaller countries against bigger ones. Trump has now confirmed, for anyone who had yet to realize it, that he is a great-power guy, and one who thinks that great powers should treat each other with a special respect. For him, the West is dead. Ukraine, along with others on Europe's frontline such as Poland, the Baltic States and Finland, was already well aware of Russia's imperial ambitions and of Trump's contemptuous view of smaller countries. However, for the two other groups that are still capable of exerting pressure on Trump and on the Ukraine war, the Alaska summit could prove to be a valuable wake-up call. Those two groups are Trump's own Republican supporters in the US Congress and the leaders of Europe's most powerful countries: Germany, France, Italy and Britain. Out of a mixture of loyalty and fear, the Republicans in Congress who care about Ukraine have up until now given Trump the benefit of the doubt. In the weeks before the summit, they chose to believe him when he threatened Russia with 'severe consequences' if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire. Now, unless information quickly emerges showing that Trump has in fact made new and credible threats privately to Putin, they are going to have to choose whether to speak out or to stay silent. The initial reaction from Republicans in Washington to the news from Alaska was quite negative. Their dismal record during Trump's so-far seven months in office nonetheless suggests they will soon quieten down. But with Trump's own poll ratings looking weak and next year's mid-term congressional elections on the horizon, there is a small chance that some might feel brave enough to stand up for Ukraine and to lobby him hard in the only place he really cares about, the United States itself. That said, the greater hope lies, as always, in Europe. For months now the main European strategy has been to try to persuade Trump to put pressure on Putin, while militaries make plans for how to give Ukraine security guarantees to reinforce a ceasefire once one has been agreed. They adopted this strategy because of their own military weakness, and paid a big price for it by meekly accepting the tariffs Trump imposed on the European Union and the United Kingdom rather than seeking to fight back by threatening trade retaliation. They will now have to decide whether this strategy has definitively failed. The cowardly but politically tempting option will be to say that the strategy needs to be given more time. Yet Trump himself, in his Hannity interview and in other remarks, has essentially indicated that this strategy has failed. He has continued to hint that he thinks Ukraine will have to cede more territory to Russia, which both Ukraine and the European leaders have rightly said is a non-starter. It really is time for the Europeans to take over the leading role in strengthening Ukraine's bargaining position and in forcing Russia to bring this war to an end. Doing so will be hard, for the Europeans' weakness is sadly genuine. Yet they do have tools at their disposal, if only they could muster the political courage to deploy them. Above all, Europe needs to show that it is willing to hurt Russia. The best way to do that would be to confiscate the estimated €200 billion of Russian central bank reserves that have been frozen in EU bank accounts for the past three years, and hand the funds to Ukraine. Doing so would grab Putin's attention and might even impress the highly transactional Trump. At the same time, Germany could start supplying Ukraine with its ample stock of long-range Taurus missiles, to take the place of the weapons America is no longer sending. All could send more missile defense systems and shorter-range missiles, even at the cost of leaving themselves vulnerable in the short term. The willingness to take such risks and to call opponents' bluff is one of the things that marks out a strong country from a weak one, and a political leader who has values from one who has none. For goodness sake stand up, Europe, before it is too late. Formerly editor-in-chief of The Economist, Bill Emmott is currently chairman of the Japan Society of the UK, the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the International Trade Institute. First published on his Substack, Bill Emmott's Global View, this is the English original of an article published on August 17 in Italian by La Stampa. It is republished here with kind permission.
