您现在的位置是：首页 > 热点专题网站首页热点专题

情报工作从来都是国际关系最重要的一环。

a tight residential alleyway：狭窄的住宅小巷setting up the most accurate shot：进行最精确的打击kept the Taliban at arms’ length：与塔利班保持一定距离much more complex and fluid in practice：在实践中更加复杂和多变

C了解到上周日无人机在喀布尔袭击 ISIS-K武装分子的新细节。据两名美国官员表示，美国在一定程度上依赖高空监视图像来锁定疑似ISIS-K武装分子。这些官员告诉C，图像显示疑似ISIS-K武装分子将爆炸物装进了一辆汽车的后备箱。

据第三名官员称，情报人员跟踪了这辆车很长一段时间，发现它停在了多个疑似ISIS-K的地点，袭击发生时，五角大楼已经收集了足够多的其他证据，相信那辆车是前往哈米德·卡尔扎伊国际机场发动袭击的。

但成本很高。空袭发生在一个狭窄的住宅小巷，据他们的家人说，至少有10名平民丧生，其中包括儿童。五角大楼为这次袭击进行了辩护，但表示目前正在调查。

现任和前任官员表示，由于地面上没有美军，收集情报将变得无限困难。十名平民死亡是一个"天文数字"，一位直接了解此类打击标准的美国官员表示。他补充称，军方会事先对附带损失进行估算。

“如果我们与当地任何合作伙伴合作，我们就不会向车辆发射导弹，而是在司机上车之前设法攻击他们。”一位了解这些袭击如何实施的前情报官员说。“除了要求我们派遣导弹或突击队之外，我们必须通过代理人或(部队)在地面进行监视，然后由当地的合作伙伴采取行动。”如果没有了美国20多年来建立起来的人力资源网络，情报和军方官员可能不知道该让无人机去哪里“寻找目标”。

虽然塔利班同意在疏散期间协调美国人和一些阿富汗人前往喀布尔机场的安全通道，拜登政府并不指望这个激进组织会成为可靠的反恐合作伙伴。理论上，美国和塔利班在某些情况下都有合作的动机，以防止恐怖分子在阿富汗重新集结。但现任和前任官员表示，实际情况要复杂得多，也不稳定得多。

“我们知道，基地组织的武装力量本质上已经嵌入了塔利班，在过去的20年里，他们一直在流亡，”特朗普总统的前国家安全顾问约翰·博尔顿告诉C。“会有很多外国武装分子回到阿富汗，不管他们自称基地组织、ISIS还是塔利班。这些人又没有会员卡。”

Biden promised ISIS-K will ‘pay.’ Having no US troops in Afghanistan makes that harder

By Natasha Bertrand, Katie Bo Williams and Zachary Cohen, C

Updated 0404 GMT (1204 HKT) September 5, 2021

Washington (C)As the Biden administration grapples with the challenge[1] of carrying out counterterrorism missions in Afghanistan without US boots on the ground[2], C has learned new details about last Sunday’s drone strike on suspected ISIS-K fighters in Kabul that some officials say provide insight into the obstacles ahead for military and intelligence officials tasked with fulfilling President Joe Biden’s promise to make the terror group “pay” for its deadly suicide attack in Kabul.

The US relied in part on overhead[3] surveillance imagery to target the suspected ISIS-K fighters, according to two US officials.The imagery showed the suspected ISIS-K fighters loading explosives into the trunk of a car, the officials told C. Intelligence assets tracked the vehicle[4] for an extended period of time and saw it stop at multiple suspected ISIS-K locations, according to a third official, and by the time of the strike, the Pentagon had amassed enough other evidence to believe that the vehicle was headed for Hamid Karzai International Airport to launch an attack.But the cost was high. The strike took place in a tight residential alleyway[5] and appears to have killed at least 10 civilians — including children, according to their families, who spoke to C in the aftermath and have disputed that any of the slain were affiliated with ISIS-K. The Pentagon has defended the strike but have said it is now under investigation.The detailed intelligence picture that officials say the military was able to build in the final hours leading up to the strike offer a window into[6] how the US military has conducted counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan for years. But current and former officials say that with no US troops left on the ground, gathering intelligence is about to become infinitely more difficult.Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and other officials who spoke privately to C called the strike “righteous” — military parlance[7] for justified. Milley said that “at least one” of those killed was an ISIS-K facilitator[8] and multiple sources told C that the strike was necessary to prevent an “imminent” threat to US troops helping evacuate thousands of Americans and Afghan refugees from Kabul amid the Taliban takeover of the country.And two officials who had seen US surveillance imagery in the aftermath of the strike confirmed official statements that there were large secondary explosions, indicating the presence of the explosives in the vehicle trunk — which these officials suggested may have caused the deaths of the nearby civilians.But some former intelligence officials who spoke to C on the condition of anonymity have questioned the high civilian death toll[9]. For these former officials, the strike is evidence of a harsh new reality in which setting up the most accurate shot[10] is far more challenging than it was when US surveillance and on-the-ground presence[11] was more robust.‘Astronomically high’ number of civilian deathsTen civilian deaths is an “astronomically high” number, according to a US official with direct knowledge of the standards for a strike of this nature, who added that the military would have conducted collateral[12] damage estimates[13] beforehand.“Had we cooperation with any local partner, we would have never fired a missile at the vehicle but tried to get to the drivers before they got in the car,” said one former intelligence official with knowledge of how these strikes are carried out. “That assumes we had intel on the car as opposed to the people, and maybe after it was already in route which leaves far fewer options.”“There is an expectation that our technology will allow this offshore reach for insight and disruption which is just not how it’s going to play out,” the former official added. “We have to have eyes on the ground either by proxy or through [forces] and then a local partner to take action, other than require us to send in missiles or commandos.”Biden has promised to continue US strikes on ISIS-K militants in Afghanistan, vowing to make them “pay” for the attack on Kabul airport last week that killed 13 US service members and scores of Afghans trying to flee the country.But with the US backed Afghan government in exile and the Taliban now effectively in charge of the entire country, retaining visibility into terrorist groups like ISIS-K will be more difficult, current and former officials say.

注友新闻

注释[1] grapples with the challenge

注释:应付挑战

[2] without US boots on the ground

注释:没有美国地面部队介入

[3] overhead

注释:在高处的

备注:美 [ˌəʊvəˈhed; ˈəʊvəˌhed]英 [ˌəʊvəˈhed; ˈəʊvəˌhed]adv. 在头顶上方，在空中；在高处adj. 在头上方的，在空中的；地面以上的，高架的；（费用、开支等）经常的，日常的；（驱动装置）顶置式的n. 经常性支出，运营费用（常用复数 overheads）；（用于高射投影仪的）透明胶片；（飞机的）顶舱

[4] tracked the vehicle

注释:跟踪车辆

[5] a tight residential alleyway

注释:狭窄的住宅小巷

[6] offer a window into

注释:为人们了解

[7] parlance

注释:说法

备注:美 [ˈpɑːləns]英 [ˈpɑːləns]n. 说法；用语；语调；发言

[8] facilitator

注释:促进者

备注:美 [fəˈsɪlɪteɪtə(r)]英 [fəˈsɪlɪteɪtə(r)]n. 服务商；促进者

[9] high civilian death toll

注释:平民死亡人数高

[10] setting up the most accurate shot

注释:进行最精确的打击

[11] on-the-ground presence

注释:实地的存在

[12] collateral

注释:附属的

备注:美 [kəˈlætərəl]英 [kəˈlætərəl]n. 抵押品，担保品；旁系亲属adj. 附属的；旁系的；并行的

[13] conducted collateral damage estimates

注释:进行附带损失估算

Biden promised ISIS-K will pay. Having no US troops in Afghanistan makes that harder(2)

Even though the US can continue to fly surveillance drones over Afghanistan, because they will be launched from Gulf countries, the drones will spend as much as 60 percent of their fly time just getting to and from Afghanistan, limiting the amount of coverage that they can provide inside the country.That creates blind spots[1], multiple current and former officials said. And without a network of human sources that the United States built up over 20 years, intelligence and military officials might not know where to “task” the drones to look.“You can have the most sophisticated air, but if you don’t have the information it doesn’t matter,” said one former intelligence official. “You have to know there’s a threat, then you have to know who is involved and identify them and say, ‘where are they going to be and when?’”As a result, the Biden administration is grappling with whether some form of “loosely defined” diplomatic and counterterrorism relationship with the Taliban might be necessary.Hard choicesThe administration is now actively discussing—internally and with international allies—whether and how to open diplomatic relations with the Taliban, according to two other US officials. That decision will in turn impact the future of US counterterrorism operations in the country.Over the last several days and weeks, officials have been weighing hard policy questions[2] like whether to release funds to the Taliban and who might serve as the main interlocutor[3] to a group that was once a sworn enemy[4] of the United States. How much intelligence to share with the Taliban in an attempt to thwart terrorist attacks[5] has been a subject of ongoing debate since the evacuation operation began, and continues to loom over the policy discussions, officials said.Adding to the challenge is the fact that the administration believed it would have much more time to make these decisions.For months, the Biden administration has been reviewing its policy for conducting drone strikes against terrorists in countries that are not active war zones. The drone strike review had been nearing completion, sources familiar with the process said, but the unexpectedly swift rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan has complicated matters.While the Taliban agreed to coordinate safe passage for Americans and some Afghans to Kabul airport during the evacuation, the administration is not betting on the militant group becoming a reliable counterterrorism partner.“It’s possible,” Milley said Wednesday when asked if the US will seek to coordinate strikes on ISIS-K with the Taliban going forward[6]. But both he and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin expressed deep skepticism, with Austin telling reporters that the limited coordination during the evacuation should not be seen as a model for the future.“I would not make any leaps of logic to broader issues,” he said.Even during the evacuation mission, the US kept the Taliban at arms’ length[7]. While the US did share some intelligence with the militants to help thwart potential terrorist attacks on the airport, it was extremely limited in scope and offered only to ensure the safety of US troops, according to one US official.The US also did not receive any usable intelligence from the Taliban, this person said, as the Pentagon and intelligence agencies conducted counterterrorism operations on the ground in Kabul to try to thwart potential attacks by ISIS-K.‘A fool’s errand’The deal struck between former President Donald Trump’s administration and the Taliban in February 2020 required that in exchange for a US withdrawal, the Taliban would sever ties with[8] al Qaeda and work to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for it and other terrorist groups like ISIS-K to launch attacks against the United States. That agreement is now informing how the US is thinking about its future diplomatic and counterterrorism relationship with the group, according to a US official familiar with the ongoing deliberations[9].Theoretically, both the US and the Taliban have an incentive to work together in certain instances to prevent terrorists from regrouping in Afghanistan. But current and former officials say the situation is much more complex and fluid in practice[10].“We know already al Qaeda forces are essentially embedded with the Taliban and they were during the 20 years they were in exile,” President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton told C. “You’re going to have a lot of foreign fighters coming back into Afghanistan whether they call themselves al Qaeda or ISIS or Taliban. It’s not like these people have membership cards.”

注友新闻

注释[1] creates blind spots

注释:创建盲点

[2] weighing hard policy questions

注释:权衡棘手的政策问题

[3] interlocutor

注释:（代表他人的）中间对话者

备注:美 [.ɪntərlɑkjətər]英 [.ɪntə(r)lɒkjʊtə(r)]n.参加谈话者；对话者；（代表他人的）中间对话者网络问话者；考官；谈话考官

[4] sworn enemy

注释:死敌

备注:n. 不共戴天的敌仇

[5] thwart terrorist attacks

注释:阻止恐怖袭击

[6] coordinate strikes on ISIS-K with the Taliban going forward

注释:与塔利班协调对ISIS-K的打击

[7] kept the Taliban at arms’ length

注释:与塔利班保持一定距离

[8] sever ties with

注释:断绝与

[9] ongoing deliberations

注释:正在进行的讨论

[10] much more complex and fluid in practice

注释:在实践中更加复杂和多变