Considering the historical background of the leadership of the Resistance Front, since the beginning of the Soviet invasion until now, several former political and military leaders who previously identified themselves with the Shura-e Nazar or Northern Alliance and currently operate outside the country under the name of the “Resistance Front,” are receiving support from foreign intelligence agencies in exchange for selling the country’s natural resources and geography.
They have consistently remained the main players in Afghanistan’s problems, becoming tools in the hands of others and relying on foreign and international aid.
During the Soviet invasion, the Northern Alliance were the ones who were used by the intelligence agencies of the United States, Saudi Arabia, Iran, India, Pakistan, and several other countries for their nefarious purposes in Afghanistan.
During the American invasion, the same fragmented members of the Northern Alliance, riding on NATO tanks, entered Kabul in the guise of mercenaries and, until the fall of the Republic, implemented intelligence plans for their foreign masters with utmost loyalty.
A few days ago, various opinions, rumors, and news regarding Bagram military base were exchanged on social media.
Some malicious groups and foreign media outlets have spread rumors that the caretaker government has handed over Bagram Airfield and military base to the United States, while the spokesperson of the caretaker government has categorically denied and dismissed these claims.
In order to politically exploit the mentioned issue and attract public attention, a member of the Resistance Front, Abdullah Khanjani, revealed the fundamental essence of the Resistance to the people in connection with Bagram in an interview with a rented media outlet.
According to him: “Bagram is in the Tajik area, and Trump should talk to us instead of the caretaker government.” From these words, it is clear that the Resistance Front is ready to sell Afghanistan’s land to foreign military bases in exchange for their survival and justify this under the guise of “restoring democracy” or “so-called resistance,” which can be called a treacherous policy.
Moreover, it is also worth noting that individuals or movements that use a national port, geography, field, or pipeline in the name of a specific ethnic group for political gain can be considered a different form of internal betrayal of the country.
The question is, if national facilities, airports, and military bases belong to the nation, what does it mean for one intelligence agency to provide information, weaken, or target these facilities for its enemy? Isn’t this a clear example of internal betrayal?
According to political analysts, resistance continuously considers foreign powers as determinants of its future. They believe that the current policy of the front not only harms the unity, independence, and self-sufficiency of the country but can also pose a significant threat to national institutions.
Note: The articles, essays, and comments published by the Voice of Hindukush only reflect the views of the authors & writers and do not necessarily represent the agreement of the Voice of Hindukush.
