Why Attack Afghan Civilians? Creating Chaos Rewards Taliban<br />The government, Mr. Saleh said, often cannot even know whether a suicide bomber entered from outside the city "or whether he is brainwashed here; whether they build the vests<br />here or whether they import." The group’s internal dynamics have aligned with its shifting incentives, elevating officers who favor large-scale attacks on civilians.<br />Nuristani said that We never had any direct contacts with them, except for indirect and personal contacts.<br />As American-led forces have escalated in response to Taliban gains, they have unintentionally pushed the Taliban toward grislier violence.<br />Whether the week’s events will translate into a long-term gain for the Taliban or serve only as a terrible<br />but temporary show of force, the attacks embody the trends toward violence and disintegration that appear to be only worsening in Afghanistan.<br />"Only the government is differentiating between them." Weakening the Taliban’s ability to act as a traditional insurgency<br />that holds territory, though logical, also compels them to prioritize their role as terrorist group, as this week’s attacks show.<br />Asked whether victory was still possible, he gave the same answer American generals have given for over 16 years: "Absolutely, absolutely." The Interpreter is a column by Max Fisher<br />and Amanda Taub exploring the ideas and context behind major world events.<br />While this week’s attacks may be unrelated to American efforts to pressure Pakistan, the country<br />has typically reacted to perceived threats by ramping up violence in Afghanistan.
