Arguably the best-known mujahideen outside the Islamic world, various loosely aligned Afghan opposition groups initially rebelled against the government of the pro-Soviet Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) during the late 1970s. At the DRA's request, the Soviet Union brought forces into the country to aid the government from 1979. The mujahideen fought against Soviet and DRA troops during the Soviet–Afghan War(1979–1989). Afghanistan's resistance movement originated in chaos and, at first, regional warlords waged virtually all of its fighting locally. As warfare became more sophisticated, outside support and regional coordination grew. The basic units of mujahideen organization and action continued to reflect the highly decentralized nature of Afghan society and strong loci of competing mujahideen and tribal groups, particularly in isolated areas among the mountains.[11] Eventually, the seven main mujahideen parties allied as the political bloc called Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen.

Many Muslims from other countries assisted the various mujahideen groups in Afghanistan. Some groups of these veterans became significant players in later conflicts in and around the Muslim world. Osama bin Laden, originally from a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia, was a prominent organizer and financier of an all-Arab Islamist group of foreign volunteers; his Maktab al-Khadamat funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the Muslim world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi and Pakistani governments.[12] These foreign fighters became known as "Afghan Arabs" and their efforts were coordinated by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam.

...

Mujahideen forces caused serious casualties to the Soviet forces, and made the war very costly for the Soviet Union. In 1989 the Soviet Union withdrew its forces from Afghanistan. Many districts and cities then fell to the mujahideen; in 1992 the DRA's last president, Mohammad Najibullah, was overthrown.

However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, and many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other over power in Kabul. After several years of devastating fighting, a village mullah named Mohammed Omarorganized a new armed movement with the backing of Pakistan. This movement became known as the Taliban("students" in Pashto), referring to how most Taliban had grown up in refugee camps in Pakistan during the 1980s and were taught in the Saudi-backed Wahhabi madrassas, religious schools known for teaching a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. Veteran mujahideen confronted this radical splinter group in 1996.

Read more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

See also:

First some context, beginning with the fact that the tortured history of this landlocked country, whose geographic location as a land bridge between Central Asia and the Middle East, and in modern times also as a potentially vital energy bridge, entitles the Afghan people to believe that they are uniquely cursed. 

The inordinate price they have been forced to pay since the US-backed Mujahadeen overran the country in the early nineties, all the way up to now at the end of 18 years of US/NATO attacks, occupation, and the propping up of a series of corrupt governments in Kabul, should be inscribed on the gravestone of what has passed for foreign policy in the West since the Soviet Union departed the scene.

As it did in Yugoslavia, as it did in Iraq, and as it did in Libya, Western intervention in Afghanistan only succeeded in making a bad situation many times worse. It has exacerbated religious, tribal and communal tensions instead of alleviating them.

Though, given the above, any peace deal that will hasten the departure of US and NATO forces from Afghanistan is to be welcomed, the devil as ever is in the detail.

And the devil in this particular instance is the CIA.

Before we come on to that and them, though, let us first consider the terms of the draft agreement, arrived at after eight rounds of talks over two weeks in the Qatari capital of Doha (though at the time of writing yet to be ratified by President Trump).

They require that in return for the complete withdrawal of US and NATO forces the Taliban will not allow the territory under its control,predominantly but not exclusively in the south of the country, to be used as a base and launchpad for terrorist groups such as Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) and Al-Qaeda.

The terms of the agreement also mandate intra-Afghan dialogue between the various factions in the country engaged in hostilities. However whether the Taliban will accept the current Afghan government in Kabul, led by Ashraf Ghani, as a legitimate participant in any such future dialogue remains to be seen.

Up to this point, the Pashtun nationalist movement has steadfastly refused to recognise the government in Kabul. It has dismissed it as a US puppet regime, and in line with that has dismissed the upcoming Afghan elections, set to take place on September 28, as a sham.

Despite the enthusiasm of the chief US diplomat involved in the talks with the Taliban, US Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad, expressed in a series of tweets, the entire thing smacks of a desperate cut and run exit by the Trump administration.

Here it should be borne in mind that Trump inherited this dog’s dinner of a military occupation in the country from Obama, a president who has much to answer for when it comes to the current state of the country.

Currently there are 14,000 US troops in the Central Asian country, along with a further 17,000 troops from 39 NATO and other countries. This it must be stressed is the official occupation force.

There is, however, an unofficial element to the US presence in the country. It is a presence both sinister and conspicuous by its absence from the draft agreement, drawn up in Doha.

It is here we come to the shadowy and sinister activities of an equally shadowy and sinister CIA.

Calling to mind the infamous CIA-run contras in Central America in the 1980s, the notorious US intelligence agency has been running in Afghanistan what amounts to a private war with its own private army.

Details of the CIA’s operations in the country are highlighted in a chilling report, produced by the Costs of War Project based at Brown University’s Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs in the US.

Specifically, the report traces the origin of these militia groups to the initial “2001 invasion, when US military forces and the CIA organized” them “to fight Islamist militants.” However “the CIA” 18 years on “is still running local militias” in the country, which have “reportedly committed serious human rights abuses, including numerous extrajudicial killings of civilians.” Finally, the report’s authors make the point that “There is virtually no public oversight of their activities or accountability for grave human rights abuses.”

What this describes is the conduct not only of a private war but a dirty war by the CIA, one clearly inimical to any prospect of a lasting peace in a country that has known only conflict and strife over the past two decades.

Covering the story in The Intercept, the investigative news website, Alex Emmons reveals that the best known of these CIA-run Afghan militia groups is the Khost Protection Force, operating out of the CIA’s Camp Chapman in Khost province.

Drilling deeper, in a country whose most valuable commodity is opium, we are entitled, indeed obligated, to ponder whether there has been or is any crossover between the burgeoning opium trade emanating from Afghanistan and the CIA’s activities in the country.

It is a pertinent question to ask, and one that’s been pondered by better minds than mine in recent times, especially given what we know of the CIA and its legacy of criminality around the world.

Whatever the CIA is up to in Afghanistan it is nothing good. Moreover, unless its operations cease forthwith, any peace agreement between Washington and the Taliban carries about as much weight as a butterfly’s wing.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/467063-cia-taliban-peace-afghanistan/

Read from top.

Russia has rejected as "baseless" accusations that it offered Taliban-linked militants rewards to kill US and other Nato troops in Afghanistan. 

The New York Times and Washington Post cited US officials as saying a Russian military intelligence unit linked to assassination attempts in Europe had offered the alleged bounties last year. 

The Russian embassy in the US said the claims had led to threats to diplomats. 

The Taliban also denied there was any such deal with Russian intelligence.

The reports come as the US attempts to negotiate a peace deal to end the 19-year war in Afghanistan.

According to the New York Times, President Donald Trump was briefed on the reports in March, but the White House has denied this.

"Neither the president nor the vice-president were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence," said White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Saturday evening. 

However, she added, "this does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence but to the inaccuracy of The New York Times story erroneously suggesting that President Trump was briefed on this matter."

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53204747

Read from top.

See also:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/32305

Joe Biden has accused Donald Trump of doing “worse than nothing” in response to a New York Times report that the president was briefed months ago on alleged Russian bounties placed on the lives of US soldiers, and and failed to act over the secret deal between Russian intelligence services and Taliban militias. The Kremlin and the White House both challenged the accuracy of the reports.

Read more:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-news...

Read above comment and from top.

Note the vernacular used by The Independent: "The Kremlin and the White House both challenged the accuracy of the reports." The word "challenged" and "accuracy" are used as if to give a possibility the reports were accurate. Or the fact that challenging the report isn't complete denial...  Even the BBC report above, places the word "baseless" in double quote as if there was a lie coming from the "Kremlin"... but adds:

"Neither the president nor the vice-president were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence," said White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Saturday evening. 

However, she added, "this does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence but to the inaccuracy of The New York Times story erroneously suggesting that President Trump was briefed on this matter."

This is not a lie. That the media believe it or not is a question for the NYT and the WaPo to answer and provide PROOFS to the contrary and not just hide again behind "sources said"... This sort of reportage designed to hit Trump and the Russians, with crafted waffle and no truth, nor proofs, is what we expect from the gutter press, not from "highly praised media" (Gus satirical double quotes). The "secret sources" for such item are probably either mistaken or deliberately misleading... and even the information could have seen daylight as a joke, then transmitted as gospel...