Mediaboss Marketing

Indian Ambassador Manpreet Vohra says some countries in the region are sabotaging attempts at peace.

Hinting indirectly at Pakistan, the Indian ambassador in Kabul, Manpreet Vohra, said some countries in the region have damaged all peace efforts and are following destructive policies. Sadly, in our immediate neighborhood, there are some who deliberately sabotage all attempts for peace and greater regional cooperation and connectivity, he said. India hopes that better sense will prevail on them one day and their self-destructive policies will change. Marking the 70th Independence Day of India at the Indian Embassy in Kabul, the ambassador said New Delhi will stand beside Afghans in the fight against terrorism. We champion Afghanistans cause and stand with it shoulder to shoulder as it faces serious challenges and strives to build a peaceful, secure and prosperous nation, he stated. At the same event, Second Vice President Mohammad Sarwar Danish said a number of countries in the region were trying to change their security centric policies to an economic centric policy and to regional cooperation. Though Afghanistan is living in an imposed war and is on the frontline of the fight against insurgency and terrorism, and our civilians and forces are being sacrificed in barbaric terrorist attacks every day ... the policy of the Afghan government is based on an economic-centric policy not security-centric, he said.

Regional countries particularly our neighbors should pay attention to this important matter that our politics and policy should not be ordered as security-centric. India has invested $2.5 billion USD in infrastructure in Afghanistan and has pledged an additional one billion dollars in aid.

See more here:
Terrorist Activities In Afghanistan A Threat To India: Envoy - TOLOnews

The CEO of the National Unity Government (NUG) Abdullah Abdullah visited Minsk, the capital of Belarus, on Tuesday while on an official trip and met with Andrei Vladimirovich Kobyakov, the Belarusian Prime Minister.

Abdullah will hold talks with Kobyakov and it is expected that a package of international agreements will be signed, including one on industrial cooperation and the simplification of visa formalities.

Abdullah also met with Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus, and discussed bilateral economic and trade opportunities.

He visited Belarusian Great Patriotic War Museum in Minsk on Wednesday and laid a wreath at the Monument of Victory.

He also visited the Minsk car, construction and electricity companies with the Afghan delegation where officials from the motor manufacturer promised to cooperate with Afghanistan.

In the meantime, the CEO's office in a statement said that Officials of Belarus and Afghanistan will sign agreements over economic, business, legislation and justice.

The commodity exchange value between Belarus and Afghanistan totaled more than $25 million USD in 2016, which is 60 percent more than in 2015, according to Belarusian media reports.

We are to sign two documents on activation of industrial cooperation and simplification of visa regime. In my opinion it will contribute to business communication,Jawed Faisal, a spokesman for Abdullah, told TOLOnews.

This is the first official visit to Belarus in the history of bilateral relations between Minsk and Kabul.

Read more:
Belarus, Afghanistan Forge New Strategy for Cooperation - TOLOnews

British Royal Marines commandos in Afghanistan. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

As President Trump wrestles with Americas role in Afghanistan, he should first decide what our objectives are today, compared to what we wanted immediately after September 11, 2001.

Initially, the United States overthrew the Taliban regime; but we failed to destroy it completely. Regime supporters, allied tribal forces and opportunistic warlords escaped (or returned) to Pakistans frontier regions to establish sanctuaries.

Similarly, while the Talibans ouster also forced Al Qaedainto exile in Pakistan and elsewhere, the terror groupnonetheless continued and expanded its terrorist activities. In Iraq and Syria, Al Qaeda morphed into the even more virulent ISIS, which is now gaining strength in Afghanistan.

In short, Americas Afghan victories were significant, but incomplete. Subsequently, we failed to revise and update our Afghan strategic objectives, leading many to argue that the war had gone on too long and that we should withdraw. This criticism is superficially appealing, recalling anti-Vietnam War activist Allard Lowensteins cutting remarks about Richard Nixons policies. While Lowenstein acknowledged that he understood those, like SenatorGeorge Aiken, who said we should win and get out, Lowensteinsaid that he couldnt understand Nixons strategy of lose and stay in.

August 16, 2017 12:08 pm

Today in Afghanistan, the pertinent question is what we seek to prevent, not what we seek to achieve. Making Afghanistan serene and peaceful does not constitute a legitimate American geopolitical interest. Instead, we face two principal threats.

First, the Talibans return to power throughout Afghanistan would re-create the prospect of the country being used as a base of operations for international terrorism. It is simply unacceptable to allow the pre-2001 status quo to re-emerge.

Second, a post-9/11 goal (at least one better understood today) is preventing a Taliban victory in Afghanistan that would enable the Pakistani Taliban or other terrorist groups to seize control in Islamabad. Not only would such a takeover make all of Pakistan yet another terrorist sanctuary, but if its large nuclear arsenal fell to terrorists, we would immediately face the equivalent of Iran and North Korea on nuclear steroids. Worryingly, Pakistans military especially its intelligence armis already thought to be controlled by radical Islamists.

Given terrorisms global spread since 9/11 and the risk of a perfect storm the confluence of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction the continuing threats we face in the Afghan arena are even graver than those posed before9/11. Accordingly, abandoning the field in Afghanistan is simply not a tenable strategy.

On the other hand, accomplishing Americas goals does not require remaking Afghanistans government, economy or military in our image. Believing that only nation building in Afghanistan could ultimately guard against the terrorist threat was mistaken. For too long, it distracted Washington and materially contributed to the decline in American public support for a continuing military presence there, despite the manifest need for it.

There is no chance that the Trump administration will pursue nation building in Afghanistan, as the president has repeatedly made clear. Speaking as a Reagan administration alumnus of USAID, I concur. We should certainly continue bilateral economic assistance to Afghanistan, which, strategically applied, served America well in countless circumstances during the Cold War and thereafter. But we should not conflate it with the diaphanous prospect of nation building.

Nor should we assume that the military component in Afghanistan must be a repetition or expansion of the boots-on-the-ground approach that the US hasfollowed since the initial assault on the Taliban. Other alternatives appear available and should be seriously considered, including possibly larger USmilitary commitments of the right sort.

Even more important, there must be far greater focus on Pakistan.

Pakistan a nuclear weapons state thathas been politically unstable since British Indias 1947 partition, and is increasingly under Chinese influence because of the hostility with Indiais a volatile and lethal mix ultimately more important than Afghanistan itself. Until and unless Pakistan becomes convinced that interfering in Afghanistan is too dangerous and too costly, no realistic USmilitary scenario in Afghanistan can succeed.

The stakes are high on the subcontinent, not just because of the Af-Pak problems, but because Pakistan, India and China are all nuclear powers. The Trump administration should not be mesmerized only by US troop levels. It must concentrate urgently on the bigger strategic picture. The size and nature of Americas military commitment in Afghanistan will more likely emerge from that analysis rather than the other way around. And time is growing short.

John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was the US permanent representative to the United Nations and, previously, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

This article was originally published by the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

Read more from the original source:
Time Is Ticking for Trump in Afghanistan - Algemeiner

Militia backed by Iran on the Iraq-Syria border blames U.S. for an attack that killed 36 of its fighters, including some Iranian Revolutionary Guards. U.S. denies responsibility, and IS claims responsibility. Iraqi PM Abadi also says that preliminary investigation indicates IS was responsible.

Exodus of physicians and other highly educated professionals from Iraq causes shortage, threatens the country's future.

An Iraqi Civil Defense commander says some 3,000 corpses remain buried in rubble in Mosul.

Next target appears to be Tal Afar as coalition air strikes soften up defenses and a French artillery battalion prepares to advance on the city.

An Iraqi armored division also reaches the town.

In yet another indication of ethnic tensions, Kurdistan president Barzani claims most of the Turkmen residents of Tal Afar are loyal to IS. The participation of Iranian-backed Shia militia in the fight for Tal Afar remains controversial. Barzani also wishes for Iraqi government forces, rather than the militia, to exclusively conduct the operation.

Iraq sentences 27 to death for the Speicher massacre in which IS killed as many as 1,700 captured Iraqi soldiers.

One hundred additional U.S. Marines are deployed to Afghanistan to bolster forces in Helmand.

Taliban capture a village in Sar-e-Pul. Details of the attack are unclear and disputed, with some officials claiming that the the Taliban and IS cooperated in the assault. Fifty civilians are said to have been massacred in the assault .Some civilian prisoners who have been released seem to corroborate this. Locals criticize the slow response by the security forces.

If indeed the Taliban and IS are cooperating it would appear even stranger that Iran is supporting the Taliban.Iran has strongly condemned the attack in Sar-e-Pul, and separatelydenies any link to the Taliban or armed groups in Afghanistan.

I can't even . . . Trump administration considers a plan to contract out the war in Afghanistan to mercenaries. The idea is being pushed by Blackwater founder Erik Prince,who compares it to Britains colonization of India through the British East India Company.

Jake Johnson at Common Dreams comments on this idea.

See the original post here:
Today in Iraq and Afghanistan

One thing all Americans should be able to agree on is that its time for a change of course in Afghanistan.

Our current path is untenable. The Obama administration didnt deliver the seeming victory that propelled him to a second term in office. Instead, it slow-walked defeat, leaving the problem to Obamas successor.

Now, President Trump has taken the prudent step of rejecting incremental increases and superficial changes to the Obama-era policy. What comes next should be a big departure from business as usual, even if it adds on what appears to be more risks. The real risk is the one we know already the one involved in continuing to do what doesnt work.

Some in Congress have grown restive. Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, recently said, We are losing in Afghanistan and time is of the essence if we intend to turn the tide.

McCains plan would flow more troops into the beleaguered country, and give them significantly broader latitude against the Taliban, al-Qaida, the Islamic State and others. The Department of Defense has already offered a surge plan of its own.

One radical alternative making the rounds in Washington would set aside the unsatisfactory legacy of the past 16 years. Crafted by Erik Prince, familiar to some from heading the Blackwater organization, the approach begins with the view that the war in Afghanistan has been misaligned with the history of Afghanistan. While the country has maintained a long tradition of decentralized rule, our military effort has been too decentralized.

The Prince plan envisions an inflow of contractors to replace outgoing troops, and a new trustee with powers perhaps most analogous to the sweeping ones possessed by Gen. Douglas MacArthur during the occupation of postwar Japan.

Thats an interesting idea, but American military power cannot be unleashed from the military chain-of-command or robust congressional oversight. Without U.S. troops on the ground, an army of contractors could become a trip-wire, forcing the U.S. military to react to attacks on U.S. personnel on the timetable of our enemies.

Still, Prince is right to warn that Afghanistans revolving door of commanders and vicious cycle of operations just cant go on especially with major military threats spreading far outside that theater of war.

Defense Secretary James Mattis said Monday that the president is very, very close to a decision about a new strategy in Afghanistan, and that the use of private security contractors is one option under consideration. The president is also considering a proposal to send 3,000-4,000 more U.S. troops, and the future of Gen. John Mick Nicholson, the commander of NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, is uncertain.

Advertisement

The new administration has had to deal with the war in Syria, the fight against ISIS and the threat from North Korea, but it probably needs no reminder that the war in Afghanistan, now the longest war in U.S. history, has been left on the back burner long enough. With all options on the table, its time for the president and Congress to choose a path forward that will bring the war to the best conclusion it is possible to achieve.

Go here to see the original:
Time to choose path forward in Afghanistan - LA Daily News