Seyed Abbas Hosseini/The recent attack by a former CIA-led special forces soldier in Washington is not only a security incident, but also a new revelation of America’s contradictions, evasions of responsibility, and historical mistakes in Afghanistan; contradictions that have been clearly revealed in the frank reactions of Tamim Asi, former Deputy Minister of Defense of Afghanistan, and Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Foreign Minister of the Karzai government, and show that America has suffered a moral crisis and political confusion in the face of its own “security products.”
Publish dateSunday 30 November 2025 - 10:17
Story Code : 338638
This incident, if understood correctly, is not an isolated event, but a reflection of the sick security and political structures that Washington created, guided, and then abandoned in Afghanistan over two decades.
1. America’s structural insult to Afghan allies: “You were fit to die, not to live among us”
Joe Kent, director of the US Counterterrorism Center, responded to the Washington incident by stating:
The attacker had previously been vetted for “military operations against the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS,” but had not been vetted for “his fitness to live in the United States.”
Tamim Asi, in a blunt response, exposed the profound moral contradiction of these words. He wrote:
“So Afghans were vetted enough to fight, bleed, and die alongside American forces for two decades; but not vetted enough to live in your neighborhoods?!
The message of your words is nothing more than this: You were fit to die serving us, but not to live among us.
This view is morally bankrupt, historically ignorant, and shameful. Shame on you!”
These words actually reflect a bitter truth: the Americans who used thousands of Afghans as “security elements” today call the same people “potential threats.” With this racist view, Washington shows that the “Afghan soldier” was not a security partner for it, but a consumable commodity; a commodity that has neither respect nor the right to live after its work is done.
2. The hidden face of war: the crimes of the “Gajdam” unit and the direct responsibility of the United States
The Washington incident is actually a fire that has been ignited by the secret US security programs in Afghanistan.
Rangin Dadfar Spanta reminds us in his tweets that the attacker – Abdullah Laknwal – was one of the trained forces of the “Gajdam” unit; a fearsome unit that was created, equipped and led by the CIA.
Spanta writes:
“Rahmanullah Laknwal joined the CIA’s special forces thirteen years ago, at the age of sixteen. He was a member of the dreaded "Gozdam" unit and was involved in the killing of Afghans... He cooperated with them until the last days of the Americans' withdrawal from Kabul and left Afghanistan with them in September."
He then emphasizes:
"This terrible crime is condemned; but are the Afghan people guilty or those who taught him to kill since he was a teenager?"
In another tweet, Spanta describes one of the heinous crimes of the Gozdam unit:
"On June 9, 2009, about forty members of the CIA's special forces, "Gozdam," entered the attorney general's office in Kandahar, where the police chief, Matiullah Qate, was also present at the time, and wanted to release a criminal. When they encountered resistance, they killed the police chief, the criminal director, and 9 police officers on the spot. The incident escalated to the point of a large-scale military clash between Afghan forces and the CIA's special forces in Kandahar. These individuals were eventually arrested and convicted. All efforts by their foreign backers to secure their release were met with opposition from President Karzai, but later Mr. Ashraf Ghani released them. One of the individuals who joined this unit in 2012 carried out a terrorist act in Washington.”
This narrative shows:
- The GJD forces were a US-manufactured apparatus, not part of the formal Afghan government structure.
- The US used them as gray operations tools for assassination, physical elimination, and psychological warfare.
- The Afghan government had no legal authority or jurisdiction over these units.
Today, one of the same forces committed a shooting in Washington. This is the “return of trained violence”; violence that the US itself created.
3. The psychological crisis of immigrants dependent on the US war structure
Another important part of the reality is that Afghan veterans, dependent translators, US-led special forces, and members of secret units have faced profound psychological, identity, and social crises after being transferred to the US.
A generation that was recruited into the US war machine from adolescence, accustomed to killing, separated from the Afghan social structure, and ultimately left without psychological protection, is today a victim of the same system.
The fundamental question is:
Was their crimes in Afghanistan - committed on direct US orders and without the right to trial - acceptable, but today the same behavior on US soil is called "terrorism"?!
This dichotomy shows that the "value of human life" in the US view is subject to geography. Afghanistan was the permissible geography of violence; Washington was not.
4. Strategic Risk: US Political Exploitation and Pakistan's Destructive Role
The main risk now is that Washington will use the recent incident as a pretext to intensify political pressure on Afghanistan, intensify sanctions, seek security intervention, and create a global consensus against Kabul.
This concern will become more serious when Pakistan - America's traditional partner in the project of destabilizing Afghanistan - becomes active alongside the United States.
Current realities:
1. Kabul-Islamabad relations have practically come to a standstill following border violations and the failure of ceasefire negotiations.
2. After destroying ISIS cells in Afghanistan, Pakistan has organized its remnants and operational networks on its soil.
3. The goal of Pakistan: Creating insecurity in Afghanistan, political pressure on Kabul, and managing fabricated crises with US intelligence support.
In such circumstances, the possibility of the US and Pakistan jointly exploiting the Washington incident to blacken Afghanistan, create new pressures, and open the way for intervention again is quite serious.
Conclusion: US evasion of responsibility and the need for regional vigilance
Washington's attack is not just an individual incident. This incident shows:
- The US is directly responsible for building "irregular and lawless forces" in Afghanistan.
- The psychological and social crisis of the affiliated forces is a product of this policy.
- Washington is today trying to introduce its trained victims as a "security threat" in order to escape responsibility.
- Pakistan is still an actor in destabilizing the region and provides the necessary platform for exploiting such incidents.
In such circumstances, regional countries – especially Iran, Russia and China – must monitor US and Pakistani policies with high sensitivity and prevent any new scenario to destabilize Afghanistan.
The Washington incident has an important message: the violence that America planted in Afghanistan has now sprouted in America’s own heart.
But what is more important is to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a proxy warground between the US and Pakistan; a danger that is more serious than ever.
1. America’s structural insult to Afghan allies: “You were fit to die, not to live among us”
Joe Kent, director of the US Counterterrorism Center, responded to the Washington incident by stating:
The attacker had previously been vetted for “military operations against the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS,” but had not been vetted for “his fitness to live in the United States.”
Tamim Asi, in a blunt response, exposed the profound moral contradiction of these words. He wrote:
“So Afghans were vetted enough to fight, bleed, and die alongside American forces for two decades; but not vetted enough to live in your neighborhoods?!
The message of your words is nothing more than this: You were fit to die serving us, but not to live among us.
This view is morally bankrupt, historically ignorant, and shameful. Shame on you!”
These words actually reflect a bitter truth: the Americans who used thousands of Afghans as “security elements” today call the same people “potential threats.” With this racist view, Washington shows that the “Afghan soldier” was not a security partner for it, but a consumable commodity; a commodity that has neither respect nor the right to live after its work is done.
2. The hidden face of war: the crimes of the “Gajdam” unit and the direct responsibility of the United States
The Washington incident is actually a fire that has been ignited by the secret US security programs in Afghanistan.
Rangin Dadfar Spanta reminds us in his tweets that the attacker – Abdullah Laknwal – was one of the trained forces of the “Gajdam” unit; a fearsome unit that was created, equipped and led by the CIA.
Spanta writes:
“Rahmanullah Laknwal joined the CIA’s special forces thirteen years ago, at the age of sixteen. He was a member of the dreaded "Gozdam" unit and was involved in the killing of Afghans... He cooperated with them until the last days of the Americans' withdrawal from Kabul and left Afghanistan with them in September."
He then emphasizes:
"This terrible crime is condemned; but are the Afghan people guilty or those who taught him to kill since he was a teenager?"
In another tweet, Spanta describes one of the heinous crimes of the Gozdam unit:
"On June 9, 2009, about forty members of the CIA's special forces, "Gozdam," entered the attorney general's office in Kandahar, where the police chief, Matiullah Qate, was also present at the time, and wanted to release a criminal. When they encountered resistance, they killed the police chief, the criminal director, and 9 police officers on the spot. The incident escalated to the point of a large-scale military clash between Afghan forces and the CIA's special forces in Kandahar. These individuals were eventually arrested and convicted. All efforts by their foreign backers to secure their release were met with opposition from President Karzai, but later Mr. Ashraf Ghani released them. One of the individuals who joined this unit in 2012 carried out a terrorist act in Washington.”
This narrative shows:
- The GJD forces were a US-manufactured apparatus, not part of the formal Afghan government structure.
- The US used them as gray operations tools for assassination, physical elimination, and psychological warfare.
- The Afghan government had no legal authority or jurisdiction over these units.
Today, one of the same forces committed a shooting in Washington. This is the “return of trained violence”; violence that the US itself created.
3. The psychological crisis of immigrants dependent on the US war structure
Another important part of the reality is that Afghan veterans, dependent translators, US-led special forces, and members of secret units have faced profound psychological, identity, and social crises after being transferred to the US.
A generation that was recruited into the US war machine from adolescence, accustomed to killing, separated from the Afghan social structure, and ultimately left without psychological protection, is today a victim of the same system.
The fundamental question is:
Was their crimes in Afghanistan - committed on direct US orders and without the right to trial - acceptable, but today the same behavior on US soil is called "terrorism"?!
This dichotomy shows that the "value of human life" in the US view is subject to geography. Afghanistan was the permissible geography of violence; Washington was not.
4. Strategic Risk: US Political Exploitation and Pakistan's Destructive Role
The main risk now is that Washington will use the recent incident as a pretext to intensify political pressure on Afghanistan, intensify sanctions, seek security intervention, and create a global consensus against Kabul.
This concern will become more serious when Pakistan - America's traditional partner in the project of destabilizing Afghanistan - becomes active alongside the United States.
Current realities:
1. Kabul-Islamabad relations have practically come to a standstill following border violations and the failure of ceasefire negotiations.
2. After destroying ISIS cells in Afghanistan, Pakistan has organized its remnants and operational networks on its soil.
3. The goal of Pakistan: Creating insecurity in Afghanistan, political pressure on Kabul, and managing fabricated crises with US intelligence support.
In such circumstances, the possibility of the US and Pakistan jointly exploiting the Washington incident to blacken Afghanistan, create new pressures, and open the way for intervention again is quite serious.
Conclusion: US evasion of responsibility and the need for regional vigilance
Washington's attack is not just an individual incident. This incident shows:
- The US is directly responsible for building "irregular and lawless forces" in Afghanistan.
- The psychological and social crisis of the affiliated forces is a product of this policy.
- Washington is today trying to introduce its trained victims as a "security threat" in order to escape responsibility.
- Pakistan is still an actor in destabilizing the region and provides the necessary platform for exploiting such incidents.
In such circumstances, regional countries – especially Iran, Russia and China – must monitor US and Pakistani policies with high sensitivity and prevent any new scenario to destabilize Afghanistan.
The Washington incident has an important message: the violence that America planted in Afghanistan has now sprouted in America’s own heart.
But what is more important is to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a proxy warground between the US and Pakistan; a danger that is more serious than ever.
avapress.net/vdcaeanea49nei1.tgk4.html
Top hits
