The Trump Administration Is Now Hiding Information About Taliban Attacks in Afghanistan

“The data looks bad so they hide the data.”

The national flag of Afghanistan rises from the site of a massive blast in Kabul, where the Taliban launched an attack in September 2019. Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The NATO-led military coalition in Afghanistan has stopped releasing details about Taliban attacks against the Afghan government even as the United States prepares to draw down its forces there, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction revealed in a report Friday morning. 

The decision to shield that information was another step back for Pentagon transparency and a troubling sign of turmoil following the signing of a peace agreement between the US government and the Taliban in February. The deal, which sets a 14-month timeline for a complete withdrawal of US forces, was negotiated without the Afghan government’s involvement but includes a provision requiring the Taliban to begin negotiating with Afghan leaders—a process that barely got off the ground last month and quickly ran into roadblocks

Special Inspector General John Sopko’s quarterly report noted how far apart the two sides remain. Immediately after signing the agreement, “the Taliban increased its attacks on Afghan security forces,” Sopko wrote. Instead of revealing how many attacks took place, as it had done previously, the NATO Resolute Support mission withheld data on “enemy-initiated attacks” from investigators in Sopko’s office, known as SIGAR. This data, he wrote, “was one of the last remaining metrics SIGAR was able to use to report publicly on the security situation in Afghanistan.” The military declined to reveal the information, which is not classified, due to peace negotiations between the United States and the Taliban. 

Bill Roggio, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has spent five years cataloguing how much Afghan territory falls under the Taliban’s control. (The US military used to release this information on a district-by-district basis to SIGAR, but stopped in 2018). He was not shocked by the military’s latest step to shield information about the Taliban’s brewing conflict with the Afghan government, which makes any US declaration of peace look suspect. “The data looks bad so they hide the data,” he told me. “That’s what’s going on here.”

When asked about Afghanistan on Friday, Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman acknowledged an increase in Taliban attacks. “We are not pleased by the level of violence by the Taliban,” he told reporters on a morning conference call. “The level of attacks is not conducive to a diplomatic solution.”

The Trump administration had spent months pursuing a deal to achieve peace between the Taliban and Afghan government while allowing for a withdrawal of US troops. President Trump said last year that he was intending to bring down the number of US troops, estimated at around 13,000 currently, to 8,600 troops as part of the peace deal. The exact number of troops stationed there is not known; it’s another figure the Pentagon chooses to not disclose. Hoffman said Friday that the current level is “somewhere between 8,600 and more than that,” adding that the Pentagon was comfortable with 8,600 as a baseline level even amid the increased violence from the Taliban. 

Transparency has been an ongoing issue for the Pentagon, especially during the Trump administration. Last year, Trump railed against the disclosures in SIGAR’s quarterly reports on waste, fraud, and abuse in Afghanistan and suggested they be “locked up.” During a Cabinet meeting, he told then-acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, “The enemy reads those reports; they study every line of it…I don’t want it to happen anymore, Mr. Secretary. You understand that.” SIGAR is run independently from the Pentagon and was set up by Congress to be insulated from the department, but military officials can control which information is shared with SIGAR investigators, including the amount of Taliban attacks. 

Since Trump took office, the Pentagon has stopped reporting the number of US troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria while substantially curbing its access to the press under James Mattis, Trump’s first secretary of defense. (Mark Esper, Mattis’s successor, restored regular briefings, and during the coronavirus crisis the department has held several briefings per week.)

Earlier this month, I reported on the department’s request to classify its future defense spending plans, which would eliminate an important resource for reporters and lawmakers to hold the department accountable to its spending projections. At a time when the defense spending is increasingly on the rise, these projected figures are especially important. The department also chose in late March to withhold data on coronavirus infections specific to a military base or installation, which it justified as a precaution needed to stop adversaries from seeing where the military is most vulnerable. Ten Senate Democrats, in a blistering letter to Esper on Monday, said the decision “has sowed fear within both military and civilian communities” by preventing residents near these installations “to know how widespread the illness may be in their own backyard.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate