Mediaboss Marketing

Pakistan and Afghanistan continue to carry out operations targeting Islamic State militants along their shared border, but there are signs that the two countries are not communicating, making the effort less effective.

This week, Pakistan said that it just completed the first phase of its Khyber 4 operation against IS militants in the country's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

"Terrorist hideouts were dismantled, and caches of IEDs [improvised explosive devices], arms and ammunition were seized," Pakistan Army's media wing (ISPR) said a statement.

But Afghan defense officials told VOA that Afghanistan and Pakistan had agreed that they would inform one another of planned operations against IS on both sides of the Durand Line, and that Pakistan did not do so with its recent operation against IS.

"Based on the agreement, both sides would exchange information based on which operation will be conducted under U.S. and China watch. Pakistan has not done so," Major General Daulat Waziri, spokesperson of the Afghan ministry of defense, told VOA.

Waziri added that Pakistan should target terror groups in the right locations.

"Pakistan Army should conduct operations in big cities and destroy them, as most of the centers for terrorist groups are located in big cities, not in the areas close to Durand Line," Waziri said. "Military operations need to be launched on both sides of the Durand Line. Everyone understands the terrorist sanctuaries are located in Pakistan."

Pakistan's military rejected Afghanistan's claims as "unwarranted."

"The information about Operation Khyber 4 has been shared [twice verbally and in written form] with Afghan forces as well as Resolute Support Mission," ISPR said in a statement issued last week.

Remote IS strongholds

Launched in July, Khyber 4 is part of the ongoing military operation Radd-ul-Fasaad, which is aimed at diminishing the Islamic State's threat in Pakistan and destroying the terror group's hideouts in the relatively isolated Rajgal valley in the tribal belt.

Rajgal valley of the Khyber Agency is situated in the semi-autonomous Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA), sharing a border with Afghanistan's Nangarhar province, where IS offshoot Khorasan branch has made inroads in recent years.

Earlier this year, the U.S. military and the Afghan government promised to eliminate IS in Afghanistan by the end of 2017. Hundreds of IS fighters, including several senior commanders, have been killed in recent months.

In May, the terror group lost Sheikh Abdul Hasib, its leader in Afghanistan. Hasib was killed in a joint U.S. Afghan forces raid in eastern Nangarhar.

Pakistan has long denied the existence of IS in its territory, but analysts believe the recent operation aimed at cracking down on the terror group suggests Pakistan no longer denies its existence in the area.

"Pakistani government has until recently denied the presence of the Islamic State in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa," Khadim Hussain, a political analyst from Peshawar, told VOA. "Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan and several other banned terror outfits are able to work, recruit for the IS, and move freely on both sides of the border."

Hussain added that the long-running practice of both countries blaming the other for the militants "needs to be stopped. Pakistan and Afghanistan both are victims of terrorism and they'll have to join hands if they want to win this war."

In March, IS sympathizers distributed hundreds of pamphlets containing threats from IS in the semi-autonomous FATA, as well as other cities of northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

Link:
Afghanistan Criticizes Pakistan's Anti-IS Operations - VOA News - Voice of America

Pakistan news July 29, 2017

Members of the PCB and the ACB address the media in Lahore on Saturday Getty Images

The PCB wants an apology from the Afghanistan Cricket Board (ACB) for its response after a bomb blast in Kabul on May 31. Ties between the boards were effectively severed in the wake of an attack that left more than 80 people dead and nearly 500 injured. But on Sunday*, after a meeting of the board, the ACB chief Atif Mashal said: "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"

Soon after the blast two months ago, ACB tweeted that it was cancelling "agreed terms of mutual cricketing relationship" with its Pakistan counterpart. And the issue escalated when the ACB, in an expanded statement, blamed Pakistan for the attack, saying that no agreement could be "valid in a country where terrorists are housed and provided a safe haven".

"One day, their chairman [Mashal] met me and was very positive about having good relations," Shaharyar Khan, the PCB chairman, said in Lahore. "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."

Three days before the May 31 blast, a delegation led by Mashal had met Khan in Lahore. After lengthy discussions, the Pakistan board expressed its willingness to provide Afghanistan with venues for training and conditioning camps, and laid the groundwork for Pakistan's youth and senior teams to play reciprocal tours. Both boards had agreed, in principle, to play T20 friendlies - as opposed to internationals - as part of their efforts to renew ties with each other. The matches were set to take place in Kabul and Lahore in July and August.

But, following the blast, the ACB changed its stance. The PCB issued a strong response extending its sympathies to the victims of the attack, but hit back at the "baseless allegations levelled by the Afghanistan Cricket Board". After the ACB had cancelled the itinerary, the PCB then said that the matches were simply an "informal understanding with ACB". The Pakistan board also said that the tour was subject to conducive security conditions in Afghanistan and therefore stood cancelled due to the continuous "insecurity and instability" there.

Afghanistan were recently awarded Full Member status at the ICC and are now eligible to play Test cricket. The PCB has played a lauded role in Afghanistan's cricketing progress over the years.

That rise, over the past eight years, has been steady ever since they gained ODI status in 2009 after the World Cup Qualifier in South Africa that year. That was followed by three-consecutive promotions starting from the fifth division of the World Cricket League. Over the past 12 months, Afghanistan have been fairly successful against other Full Members, securing three ODI wins over Zimbabwe and tying West Indies in an ODI series in June.

*1025 GMT The story has been updated with the ACB's response

Umar Farooq is ESPNcricinfo's Pakistan correspondent

ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

View post:
Won't revive ties until Afghanistan board apologises - PCB chairman - ESPNcricinfo.com

Afghanistan acceded to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees in 2005, but has not implemented a national asylum framework. In 2014, Afghanistan received an influx of refugees from North Waziristan Agency; an estimated 125,000 individuals remain in a protracted refugee-like situation. Under its mandate, UNHCR has registered 371 asylumseekers and refugees of various nationalities in Kabul and other urban centres.

KEY INDICATORS

51,298 refugees from NWA biometrically registered in Khost province, including 16,423 in Gulan camp

35,949 re-verified refugees from NWA in Paktika province

8,570 families received food assistance in June 2017; 275 tents, 366 NFI kits including blankets, jerry cans and sanitary and kitchen items, along with 27 gas cylinders, have been distributed this year

Operational Context and Response

The Government of Afghanistan acceded to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees in 2005. UNHCR continues to advocate with relevant government ministries and executive leadership for the enactment of a Refugee Law, and to offer technical support and training; however, at present there is no national asylum framework to regulate issues of refugee protection.

Under its mandate, UNHCR registers asylum-seekers and refugees in Afghanistan as a protection tool, with the aim to identify and assist persons with specific needs (PSN); support access to humanitarian assistance and essential services including education and health care; ensure freedom of movement and uphold basic rights; and provide a minimum safeguard against refoulement. UNHCR conducts Refugee Status Determination (RSD) in cases where the individual recognition of refugee status would lead to a durable solution, such as resettlement

Continue reading here:
Afghanistan: Inter-Agency Refugee Operational Update, June 2017 - ReliefWeb

President Trump is frustrated about the lack of progress in Afghanistan and seems to be skeptical about his military advisors proposal for the deployment of up to another 4,000 U.S. trainers, advisors and counter-terrorism forces to join the 8,500 now stationed there.

Weve been there for now close to 17 years, and I want to find out why weve been there for 17 years, how its going, and what we should do in terms of additional ideas, he told reporters recently.

We understand the presidents exasperation. Despite the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars and the loss of 2,400 American lives, the political and security situation in that country remains precarious, civilian casualties are increasing and corruption remains rife. In recent months the Taliban has gained ground.

So Trump is right to insist on a searching review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, one that considers diplomatic as well as military options. But he should say no to one proposal being floated, reportedly with the encouragement of some of his advisors: the replacement of U.S. forces by private security contractors.

According to the New York Times, White House advisors Stephen Bannon and Jared Kushner, the presidents son-in-law, asked two businessmen who profited from military contracting to come up with alternatives to sending additional troops to Afghanistan. The newspaper said that Erik D. Prince, a founder of the private security firm Blackwater Worldwide, and Stephen A. Feinberg, the owner of the military contractor DynCorp International, recommended that the government rely on private contractors instead of U.S. troops.

Thats an awful proposal. Can Bannon and Kushner have already forgotten the history of Blackwater? The company became notorious after a group of its employees were convicted of killing 14 Iraqi civilians in 2007 in Baghdad.

Undaunted, Prince (who is the brother of Trumps Education secretary, Betsy DeVos) has now written a column in the Wall Street Journal offering several ideas for changes in U.S. policy in Afghanistan. Some of them, such as the consolidation of all authority in one official, might be worth consideration, although it is disturbing that Prince sees such a person as a viceroy in the mold of Gen. Douglas MacArthur during the occupation of Japan after World War II. Even more disturbingly, Prince also suggested that the U.S. rely on private military units modeled after the armies used by the East India Company the for-profit enterprise that with its own private army effectively ruled India during British colonial era. These units, he explained, were locally recruited and trained, supported and led by contracted European professional soldiers.

If Prince is suggesting that duties now performed by U.S. military officers should be entrusted to contractors mercenaries, in effect its a horrible idea. Although private contractors have played a role in every war, military functions even if they dont technically qualify as combat duty should be handled by military personnel who are accountable in the chain of command.

Apparently Secretary of Defense James Mattis agrees. According to the New York Times, Mattis refused to include the private-contractor idea in the Afghanistan policy review he is leading along with National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster. Unfortunately, that doesnt mean the idea wont come to Trumps attention via Bannon, Kushner or other close advisors. A president with a business background might be easily beguiled by the idea of contracting out a war. But it is a terrible idea.

What ideas should the president consider?

Trump and his advisors should certainly cross-examine the consensus that a continued modest U.S. military presence is vital to the success of the Afghan governments campaign against the Taliban. (No one is suggesting that the U.S. return to the troop levels it maintained at the height of its combat role in Afghanistan, when 100,000 Americans were deployed.) Even if thats the case, some experts have argued for better integration of U.S. advisors with Afghan military units and changes in the military command structure.

And the administrations review should extend beyond military strategy. Diplomacy also must be part of the equation. That includes efforts to pressure Pakistan to do more to combat terrorist groups that use its territory to launch attacks on U.S. and allied troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. It also means being open to the possibility of negotiations between the government of Afghanistan and elements of the Taliban that would be willing to accept a constitution that secured basic rights. Indeed, one argument for military intervention in Afghanistan always has been that it places pressure on the Taliban to come to the negotiating table.

These are the issues Trump needs to consider in taking a new look at our involvement in Afghanistan. But he should forget about private armies.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

View original post here:
The war in Afghanistan needs a change in tactics. Privatizing the military isn't the answer - Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON: A bipartisan group of American senators have sought enhanced cooperation with India in Afghanistan, including increasing New Delhi's role in helping the Afghan security forces, a move that could annoy Pakistan.

The lawmakers have introduced a legislative amendment to the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) - 2018 in the Senate to support their demand.

India is one of the biggest providers of developmental assistance to war-torn Afghanistan.

The amendment seeks increasing India's role in assisting the Afghan security forces through logistics support, threat analysis, intelligence, materiel, and maintenance support.

The amendment - if passed by the Senate and implemented by the US and India - could irk Pakistan as it opposes any Indian role in neighbouring Afghanistan.

The amendment was moved on Thursday by senators Dan Sullivan, Gary Peters, John Cornyn and Mark Warner.

Warner is the vice chair of the powerful Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, while Cornyn is the Senate Majority Whip for the Republican Party.

They are also the co-chairs of the Senate India Caucus.

The amendment asks Defence Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to identify ways in which India can take "security and development related steps" in Afghanistan.

It asks the Pentagon and the State Department to find ways in which India can support "targeted infrastructure development" and economic investment in Afghanistan.

"Improve the provision by India of humanitarian and disaster relief assistance to Afghanistan, including through the provision of logistics support by India, joint training between Afghanistan and India, and combined military planning by Afghanistan and India for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions in Afghanistan," the amendment says.

Calling for a tri-lateral security and civilian co- operation between India, Afghanistan and the US, it seeks establishment of priorities for investments to promote security and stability in Afghanistan that align with the "mutual interests" of Afghanistan, India, and the US.

It also calls for identifying gaps in the capabilities of Afghanistan security forces, and determine means of addressing such gaps; and identifying economic and infrastructure development opportunities in Afghanistan related to improving security and stability in Afghanistan.

The Senate is yet to vote on the NDAA-2018.

Read this article:
US lawmakers seek increased role for India in Afghanistan - Economic Times