Mediaboss Marketing

The New York Times reported on July 25, 2017 that U.S. advisors and Afghan officials are trying to use Afghanistans mineral wealth potentialonce estimated at $1 trillionto sell President Donald Trump on a war he understandably has little enthusiasm for.

This new sales strategy is dangerous as it aims to exploit Trumps cartoonish views on global intervention, which meld the minds of a medieval emperor and a modern-day businessman.

Trump has on several occasions said that the United States should take the oil in conflict zones like Iraq. His explications have varied in focus, but take the oil appears to rest on two basic principles: what is theirs becomes ours once we invade; and foreign wars should at least pay for themselves, if not become profitable ventures.

No Good Strategy

Those who seek a long-term U.S. presence in Afghanistan are now desperate because the president has rejected the war strategy put forward by his bureaucracy and political appointees. According to POLITICO, the National Security Council Principals Committee meeting last week chaired by Trump was a sh*tshow that ended with the president sending back the Afghanistan strategy presented to him, further delaying a review that has already been extended twice.

Within the White House, the McMaster camp has tried to make the hardest sell: doing away with timelines, pressuring Pakistan, and abandoning reconciliation with the Talibana recipe for endless war in a landlocked, impoverished, and factionally divided country.

Earlier this year, McMaster reportedly showed the visually dependent Trump a slideshow of Afghanistan in 1970spresumably the same pictures of local women in miniskirts and hippy tourists that make their rounds on social media every month or so. Trump apparently did not bite McMasters superficial attempt to make the case that the country has a relatively more liberal and peaceful past that can be realized once again.

Afghanistans Minerals Miracle Fails to Materialize

Since Trump came into office, Afghan officials, including President Ashraf Ghani, have tried to quell the U.S. presidents Afghan-skepticism by talking up the countrys mineral potential.

In 2010, The New York Times reported that the Pentagon identified vast deposits of copper, gold, iron, lithium and other minerals in Afghanistan. Media-savvy Gen. David Petraeus spoke of great prospects of Afghanistans mineral industry and a Pentagon memo provided to the Times described the country as a potential Saudi Arabia of lithium. Afghan officials claimed that the mineral wealth provided the country with a path away from donor dependency.

But the case of the Mes Aynak copper mine demonstrates the false promise of Afghanistans mineral wealth being a short-to-medium term positive game-changer.

In 2007, Kabul granted a consortium led by the Metallurgical Corporation of China (MCC) a $3 billion, thirty-year lease to mine Mes Aynak, home to Afghanistans largest copper deposits. Ten years later, extraction of copper has yet to begin on the site. The project is at a standstill as security concerns grow and the MCC looks to revise the terms of the contract, not only lowering Kabuls royalty rate, but also eliminating some components of the project, including a coal power plant and railway line. Similarly, an Indian consortium that was awarded a concession five years ago at the massive Hajigak iron ore mine continues to hedge and reportedly never signed a final contract with Afghanistans Ministry of Mines and Petroleum.

Enter the Dark Prince

The leading American proponent of a resource-driven war in Afghanistan is Blackwater founder Erik Prince. Inspired by the British East India Company, Prince has called for replacing U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan with private mercenaries who focus on securing Afghanistans resources, including its vast mineral deposits, instead of its people, rejecting the population-centric counterinsurgency doctrine that has become part of the Beltway orthodoxy since the Iraq surge.

See more here:
The Plan to Exploit Afghanistan for Its Resources Is a Really Bad Idea - The National Interest Online

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

White House Looks at Scaling Back US Military Presence in Afghanistan Wall Street Journal (subscription) Unable to agree on a plan to send up to 3,900 more American forces to help turn back Taliban advances in Afghanistan, the White House is taking a new look at what would happen if the U.S. decided to scale back its military presence instead, according ... Afghanistan imbroglioDaily Times Toward an 'America First' foreign policyWashington Times all 3 news articles »

Read the rest here:
White House Looks at Scaling Back US Military Presence in Afghanistan - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

The Trump Administration will soon make a final decision on its Afghanistan policy. The main question to be answered: Should the U.S. send more troops to help Afghan security forces continue to battle the Taliban?

After 16 years of military intervention in Afghanistan, it is completely reasonable to question the wisdom of increasing U.S. troops. But much of the opposition to increasing U.S. troop numbers is based on an old style of thinking about Afghanistan and the U.S. mission there.

U.S. policymakers have fallen into two traps when it comes to Afghanistan.

The first is that some still see the military mission through the lens of U.S. objectives in 2001. Both Afghanistan and the broader region have drastically changed since then.

The 2001 objectives, focused mostly on counterterrorism, have largely been achieved. No major terrorist attack originating from Afghanistan has succeeded in the U.S. since 2001. And the terrorist-enabling Taliban that rolled into Kandahar in 1994 is a shadow of its former self.

In 2001, the Taliban controlled the entire country, except for a small rump of territory run by the Northern Alliance. Today, according to the most recent quarterly report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the Taliban has control or influence in only 11 out of the countrys 407 districtsan area that contains only 9 percent of the Afghan population. Moreover, the level of violence is nowhere close to its latest peak in 201012.

Al Qaeda, which used Afghan territory with impunity in 2001, no longer enjoys a safe haven there. And while the Islamic State has made some inroads there, the threat it poses in Afghanistan pales in comparison to that posed by its affiliates in Syria, Libya, and Yemen.

Todays security objectives focus on helping the Afghans deal with the Taliban insurgency. The goal is to keep the country from reverting back to the chaos of the 1990s. This is much different from U.S. goals in 2001.

The second trap is failing to see Afghanistan for what it really is: a Central Asian country. Afghanistan is not part of the Middle East, and referring to it as part of the so-called broader Middle East is misleading. Culturally, historically, economically and geographically, Afghanistan is part of Central Asia.

In terms of policy, it is critically important to grasp that basic fact. Many of America's greatest challenges converge in Central Asia. There we must deal with an aggressive Russia, an emboldened China, energy transit for many of our NATO and Asian allies, the presence of Islamist extremism, and the flow and recruitment of foreign fighters.

On top of this, the region is experiencing growing influence from Iran, India, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Some of that can be good; much can be very bad for U.S. security interests. If the U.S. is going to confront these challenges, then Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia cannot be ignored.

As President Trump finalizes his plan for Afghanistan, he must consider what U.S. security objectives are in 2017, not what they were in 2001. He must also see the U.S. presence in Afghanistan through the lens of U.S. policy toward Central Asia, not the Middle East.

The well-established U.S. presence in Afghanistandiplomatic, economic, and militaryhelps America keep engaged in an important region at a relatively low cost. Sending an additional 3,000-4,000 U.S. troops to train, advise, and assist Afghan security forces is a prudent way to assure we can meet our strategic security objectives. And it will send all the right messages to our allies and foes alike, be they in Europe, Afghanistan, or the rest of Central Asia.

Keeping the U.S. flag flying in an increasingly important and geopolitically challenging part of the world is in Americas interest. Now is not a time to turn our backs on Afghanistan or Central Asia.

Original post:
US Turning Away From Afghanistan? - Heritage.org

The feud between the Afghanistan and Pakistan Cricket Boards has continued to rumble on, with the PCB demanding a public apology from their neighbours in order to renew cricketing ties.

The two nations had earlier this year come to terms to play two T20 friendlies in July-August, however a bomb blast in Kabul on May 31, in which 80 people lost their lives, led to the ACB cancelling those matches.

"No agreement of friendly matches and mutual relationship agreement is valid with a country where terrorists are housed and provided safe haven," said one ACB official in the wake of the bombing, and it is that response for which the PCB is demanding an apology.

Quick Single: Clarke backs CA's arbitration proposal

"One day, (ACB) chairman (Atif Mashal) met me and was very positive about having good relations," said PCB chairman Shaharyar Khan.

"But next day he gave an extremely political statement about Pakistan, so then we told them that we don't have anything to do with you.

"He later did express his regret on making the statement and had also apologised privately.

"But we, the Board, have taken a position that until they apologise in public, we should not be reviving any cricketing ties with them."

Quick Single: Pandya could be our Stokes: Kohli

The full original discussions between the nations outlined two matches played in one another's countries (in the cities of Kabul and Lahore), and also incorporated support from the PCB to the ACB via venues for training camps, as well as the potential for ongoing tours between both junior and senior teams.

Mashal's response to the request for an apology came on Sunday following a Board meeting.

"Our relations with other cricket boards, including PCB, are based on mutual respect and national interests and we do not see the need for an apology," he said.

Afghanistan was last month awarded Test status along with Ireland, bringing the number of Test-playing nations up to 12.

Follow this link:
Pakistan demand Afghanistan apology - cricket.com.au

A monument in Lacombe, Alta., is being unveiled to commemorate the last Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan.

Master Cpl. Byron Greff, serving with the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricias Light Infantry, was killed in October of 2011 when a vehicle full of explosives hit his bus.

READ MORE: Body of Master Cpl. Byron Greff repatriated at CFB Trenton ceremony

The 28-year-old was born and raised in Lacombe, near Red Deer.

We are honoured to call Byron a Lacombian, Mayor Steve Christie said. Hewas a true Lacombian. I remember as a kid he was never scared of anything.

A demilitarized Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) III has been turned into a monument in Fairview Cemeterys Field of Honour.

Former members of the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry, who worked alongside Greff attended the dedication ceremony on Saturday.

Byron and I met in the battalion, both when we first got in. You kind of come up through the ranks together, retired corporal Maury Gratrix said. I had a good relationship with Byron.

During the ceremony, Gratrix and Greffs wife Lindsay placed a wreath at the bottom of the LAVIII, whichis meant to not only honour Greff, but also the services and sacrifices of all Canadians during the Afghanistan mission.

I think (the monument) means a lot for the Afghan veterans including myself, Gratrix said.

Simply because theres a lot of sacrifices made in Afghanistan and its a great way to ensure sacrifices that are made over there arent forgotten.

From 2001 to 2014, more than 40,000 Canadians served in Afghanistan.

2017Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Originally posted here:
Last Canadian killed in Afghanistan honoured in Alberta - Globalnews.ca