Mediaboss Marketing

Not so long ago their players played the game in refugee camps in Pakistan as a result of the war that has ravaged the country since 2001.

I think the situation in Afghanistan will be changed by sports especially cricket.

"Everyone loves the cricketers.

"The political situation is not in our hands and I dont want to talk too much about it because it is above our heads.

"But we can travel anywhere we want in the country and no one will give us problems.

"No one wants to fight because the people of Afghanistan are friendly.

"But the things that are happening are out of our control.

They have made great strides over the past few years despite the heavy odds against them.

Beating defending champions West Indies by 6 runs in their final group league encounter of the ICC World Twenty20 last year is one of the country's cricket highlights.

Cricket is the number one sport in Afghanistan and there will be millions of fans who following ball to ball of this tournament from local radios and on the internet.

Read more:
How the Afghanistan cricket players are using the sport to heal their war ravaged country - Times LIVE

KABUL, Afghanistan From a dusty village in central Afghanistan, where life depends on the almond harvest, Najiba Hussaini made it far.

Graduating at the top of her high school class, she won a scholarship to earn a degree in computer applications in India, and she went on to the port city of Kobe in Japan to receive a masters degree in information systems.

Last fall, Ms. Hussaini, 28, returned to lead the database unit at Afghanistans mining ministry, developing applications to digitize an old bureaucracy that is crucial to the countrys economic future.

Her life and dreams were cut short on Monday morning as she was making her way to work. A Taliban suicide bomber detonated a vehicle full of explosives in western Kabul, killing at least 24 people and wounding another 42, according to Najib Danish, a spokesman for the Afghan Interior Ministry. Another senior security official put the number of dead at 38.

As has become routine after such large blasts in Kabul, family members searched for hours for news of loved ones, going from hospital to hospital. Many of the bodies, including Ms. Hussainis, were badly burned.

We identified her from her ring silver, with a turquoise-colored stone, said Hussain Rezai, who was to be formally engaged to Ms. Hussaini within weeks.

He said he had already traveled to Shahristan District, in Daikundi, to seek the approval of Ms. Hussainis parents. Preparations for the engagement were in place, and the couple expected to go to Daikundi in a few weeks and make the engagement official.

Instead, Ms. Hussainis charred body, tied to the top of a small van, set off on the treacherous 18-hour journey from Kabul to Shahristan. The vehicle, with Mr. Rezai and Ms. Hussainis other loved ones on board, was to travel all night, making its way on dirt roads through patches of Taliban country.

The United Nations says there have been more than 1,000 casualties, including about 220 deaths, in Kabul in the first six months of this year, an increase of more than 25 percent compared with the same period in 2016. Most of the casualties were caused by suicide bombings in crowded areas, often in neighborhoods saturated with government and private offices.

The detonation of another large suicide device in a busy, civilian-populated area is egregious, cowardly and bereft of humanity, said Pernille Kardel, the United Nations secretary generals deputy special representative for Afghanistan.

While Afghan civilians in the countryside have suffered for years, the intensity of the violence in Kabul, the capital, this year is taking an unusual toll on young and educated Afghans. The attacks not only shatter lives largely built on the past decades opportunities, but also exacerbate a sense of hopelessness here that has driven many young Afghans to join an exodus to Europe.

Most of the people killed or wounded in the bombing on Monday worked for the Afghan Ministry of Mines and Petroleum and were commuting in a minibus from western Kabul. Others were also civilians, including Khala Aziza, a cook at a local orphanage who had five children, now orphans themselves.

There were 19 employees in that bus; 18 of them were martyred, said Abdul Qadeer Mutfi, a spokesman for the mining ministry. All of them were professionals and trained workers.

A list of the ministry victims broadcast by local news organizations showed that 13 had bachelors degrees, in subjects including chemical technology and mineral geology. Two of the victims, including Ms. Hussaini, had masters degrees.

Ms. Hussaini grew up in one of the most deprived places in central Afghanistan. Her father runs a small grocery shop in the main bazaar in Shahristan. Her mother baked bread for the nearby seminary, and Ms. Hussaini would deliver loaves.

After graduating, Ms. Hussaini went to Hyderabad, India, in 2008 to start her college studies. There, her classmates said she struggled with English at first, stymied by even basic conversations.

Jawad Kankash, one of her classmates in India, recalled how Ms. Hussaini had cared for a friend who had been hospitalized, and left her bedside to go home and cook food for her. On her way back with the food, Ms. Hussaini struggled to communicate directions to the driver, and she ended up at the wrong hospital. By the time she found her way to the right one, she was caught in a confusing fight with the driver over the high fare.

Najiba could not explain to the driver, Mr. Kankash said. The driver kept saying Madam, Madam, please pay me my full fare. It was one of the funniest memories of her I had and I used to tease her all the time about it.

Ms. Hussaini returned to Afghanistan to work at the mining ministry, which then sent her to Japan for graduate studies at the Kobe Institute of Computing. Her classmates there said her English improved so much that she helped others cope with language difficulties as well as homesickness.

Hours after her death, a picture of her receiving her masters degree circulated on social media. Dressed formally, she displays her red, bound diploma with a smile of accomplishment.

She was a hard-working girl, said Shafiqa Pooya, who got to know her while also studying in Japan. Her parents are old, and she was the breadwinner.

Her friend added: She was loyal. She had offers to work in other places, but she stayed at the ministry of mines and kept saying that the ministry has invested in me.

As Ms. Hussainis parents remained in Daikundi, friends said, she lived in western Kabul in a rented house with her two brothers and a sister. All three of her siblings had come from Daikundi for university studies with her financial support.

The funeral van to return Ms. Hussainis body to Shahristan was delayed after her sister fainted in grief and had to be brought to a doctor.

Eventually, Ms. Hussainis wooden coffin, draped in green velvet, was secured to the top of the van. She, and those who mourned her, set off for the small village where it all began.

Jawad Sukhanyar and Fatima Faizi contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on July 25, 2017, on Page A8 of the New York edition with the headline: Living to Modernize Afghanistan, and Meeting a Grim End.

Go here to read the rest:
Living to Modernize Afghanistan, and Meeting a Grim End - The ...

The lure of Afghanistan as a war-torn Klondike is well established: In 2006, the George W. Bush administration conducted aerial surveys of the country to map its mineral resources. Under President Barack Obama, the Pentagon set up a task force to try to build a mining industry in Afghanistan a challenge that was stymied by rampant corruption, as well as security problems and the lack of roads, bridges or railroads.

None of these hurdles has been removed in the last eight years, according to former officials, and some have worsened. They warn that the Trump administration is fooling itself if it believes that extracting minerals is a panacea for Afghanistans myriad ills.

It would be dangerous to use the potential for resource exploitation as a selling point for military engagement, said Laurel Miller, a senior analyst at RAND who served until last month as the State Departments special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The barriers to entry are really quite considerable, and that kind of argument could fuel suspicion about Americas real intentions in Afghanistan.

But for Mr. Trump, as a businessman, it is arguably the only appealing thing about Afghanistan. Officials said he viewed mining as a win-win that could boost that countrys economy, generate jobs for Americans and give the United States a valuable new beachhead in the market for rare-earth minerals, which has been all but monopolized by China.

China already has a $3 billion contract to develop a copper mine about 25 miles southeast of the Afghan capital, Kabul. Officials said Mr. Trump was determined not to spend American lives and treasure in Afghanistan only to watch China lock up its rare-earth deposits, which are used to make products from wind turbines to computer chips.

Mr. Silver, the chemical executive, may head an effort to maximize the rights for American companies to extract these minerals, according to a senior official.

Mr. Trumps interest also reflects how his military advisers have struggled to present him with other persuasive reasons to send troops to the country, where the United States has been at war since 2001.

The White Houses review of Afghanistan policy led by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster was supposed to be finished by the middle of July. Instead, it bogged down after Mr. Trump expressed displeasure with a proposal from General McMaster for a modest troop increase and a multiyear commitment to the country.

Policy meetings have become increasingly heated, officials said, as Mr. Trump and his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, have squared off against General McMaster. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson is also said to be unhappy with the current proposals.

Vice President Mike Pence, not General McMaster, will lead a meeting Wednesday of National Security Council principals on Afghanistan. Some officials said that reflected General McMasters isolation; others said that the general welcomed Mr. Pences involvement and that the two were closely aligned on the policy.

But Mr. Trump, it is clear, is not. In June, he grudgingly agreed to give Mr. Mattis the authority to send additional troops a number believed to be about 4,000 as a stopgap measure to stabilize security in Afghanistan. But Mr. Mattis has not yet used his authority, perhaps reflecting his recognition that the commander in chief is uncomfortable with it.

When reporters last week asked Mr. Trump at a meeting at the Pentagon whether he planned to send more troops, he answered, Well see, and added, ISIS is falling fast, suggesting he viewed the counterterrorism threat in Afghanistan as declining.

Worried that Mr. Trump will be locked into policies that did not work for the last two presidents, Mr. Bannon and the presidents son-in-law, Jared Kushner, have brought in outside voices, including Mr. Feinberg and Erik D. Prince, a founder of the private security firm Blackwater International. Both have urged using more private contractors and giving the C.I.A. an oversight role in the conflict.

In addition, Mr. Feinberg has reached out to people involved in the Obama administrations effort to build Afghanistans mining industry. Some warned him that the prospects for a profitable business are worse now than in 2009, given the decline in commodities prices and the deteriorating security in areas where the deposits are believed to lie.

Afghanistans deposits of copper and iron ore are trading at about a third of their 2010 prices. Most of the undiscovered deposits of rare-earth minerals are believed to be in Helmand Province, large parts of which are controlled by the Taliban.

There are undoubtedly minerals to be exploited in Afghanistan, which could help provide economic stability to the country in the future, said Daniel F. Feldman, a former special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. But given all the obstacles, it could be many years before mining yields dividends for the Afghan people.

One advantage is that the Trump administration would have a willing partner in the Afghan government. During the Obama administration, President Ghani resisted the rapid development of the mining industry, largely because he worried about the threat of widespread corruption that would come with it.

But as soon as Mr. Trump was elected, Mr. Ghani reversed his position, contacting the Trump team and promoting Afghanistans mineral wealth. He realized that Mr. Trump would be intrigued by the commercial possibilities, officials said.

Mr. Trump has said little publicly about Afghanistan since being elected. But his thinking about what the United States should reap for its military efforts was made clear in another context soon after his inauguration. Speaking to employees of the C.I.A., the president said the United States had erred in withdrawing troops from Iraq without holding on to its oil.

The old expression To the victor belong the spoils, Mr. Trump declared. You remember?

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on July 26, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Mineral Wealth In Afghanistan Tempts Trump.

Read the rest here:
Trump Finds Reason for the US to Remain in Afghanistan: Minerals - New York Times

America's longest war is approaching its 17th year.

As part of our series, Issues That Matter, we took a closer look at the conflict in Afghanistan with Michle Flournoy, who served as undersecretary of defense for policy under President Obama from 2009 to 2012.

"The real issue here is a political strategy," Flournoy told "CBS This Morning" Tuesday. Flournoy is also the co-founder and CEO of the Center for a New American Security.

The war in Afghanistan was launched on October 7, 2001 in response to the September 11 attacks.

"I think first of all, the Taliban has proven to be a very resilient insurgency. They have support from Pakistan, they have support from outside countries. We've had an Afghan government that's been very weak and really plagued by corruption. And we, too, have made mistakes," Flournoy said.

Flournoy pointed to the years from 2003 to 2009 when she says the U.S. focus was largely switched to Iraq.

"When President Obama came in and launched the surge [of U.S. troops in Afghanistan] in 2009, that was important to regaining momentum, but he also announced that that surge would only last a short while -- about less than two years -- and so the Taliban had the signal, you know, we can just wait this out," Flournoy said.

Defense Secretary James Mattis told a Senate committee last month the United States is not winning the war. Flournoy doesn't disagree.

"It's really a stalemate at this point. The good news is that the Afghan forces are in the lead and with our support they continue to hold their own, but they do need our continued support," Flournoy said.

Play Video

U.S. Marines are returning to Afghanistan to fight for territory they once held. About 350 marines died in Helmand Province fighting against the ...

"The real issue here is a political strategy. How do we use that leverage of additional troops supporting the Afghans to actually get the Taliban to the negotiating table. Nobody's gonna win this on the battlefield."

Asked how much territory the Taliban controls now compared to 9/11, Flournoy said, "It controls more now than when we first started the war."

"We have evidence that Russia's proving small arms to the Taliban. Also Iran. So we have this problem of outside support," Flournoy said.

She said the countries providing support are "hedging their bets" in case the Taliban wins, but it also provides them a chance to "poke the United States."

The Trump administration is reviewing U.S. policy on Afghanistan and in comments last week, the president said, "I want to find out why we've been there for 17 years."

What does Flournoy think officials should consider? "What I think we want to see coming out of the Trump administration is a very clear statement of commitment. Look, we have to remember, why are we there? We are there because we don't want Afghanistan to once again become a safe haven for terrorists that could strike the United States," Flournoy said. "The last thing we want is for ISIS to pick up and move from Syria to Afghanistan because we're not pushing back hard enough."

Asked what Trump should do, Flournoy said, "I think the most important thing beyond the troop numbers is a political strategy -- you have to have a broader strategy into which the military portion fits. You have to have a way to get the Taliban to the table."

"The U.S. has to signal a long-term commitment to Afghanistan as a partner for fighting terrorism in the region. If there's any waffling, any sense that we're not fully committed the Taliban will continue to wait us out," Flournoy said.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Originally posted here:
Michle Flournoy on Afghanistan: "Nobody's gonna win this on the ... - CBS News

US generals first suggested they were concerned the Russian government was seeking to arm the Afghan insurgents back in April, but images from the battlefield here corroborating these claims have been hard to come by.

These two videos show sniper rifles, Kalashnikov variants and heavy machine guns that weapons experts say are stripped of any means of identifying their origin.

Two separate sets of Taliban, one in the north and another in the west, claim to be in possession of the weapons, which they say were originally supplied by Russian government sources. One splinter group of Taliban near Herat say they obtained the guns after defeating a mainstream rival group of Taliban. Another group say they got the weapons for free across the border with Tajikistan and that they were provided by "the Russians."

The videos don't provide incontrovertible proof of the trade, of which Moscow has categorically denied involvement. Yet they offer some of the first battlefield evidence of a flow of weapons that has the Afghan and American governments deeply concerned about Moscow's intentions here.

"The Russians have said that they maintain contact with the Taliban, we have lots of other reports from other people they are arming the Taliban ... there is no smoke without fire," Afghan government spokesman Sediq Sediqi said. "That's why our intelligence agencies are up to the job to find out what level of support that is to the Taliban."

Another Afghan official said they were sure that trade was happening between Russia and the Taliban.

Russia's Foreign Ministry declined to comment for this article but has previously called claims they are arming the Taliban "utterly false" and said they were made to cover up for the United States' failure in Afghanistan. The Russians talk to the Taliban purely to promote peace talks, they said.

US officials have long voiced concerns about any weapons flow to the terror group. Asked in April whether he would refute the reports Russia was arming the Taliban, the US commander here, Gen. John Nicholson, said: "Oh, no I'm not refuting that... Arming belligerents or legitimizing belligerents who perpetuate attacks ... is not the best way forward."

Gen. Joseph Votel, chief of US Central Command, told a congressional committee in March he believed the Russians were seeking influence in Afghanistan.

"I think it is fair to assume they may be providing some sort of support to (the Taliban) in terms of weapons or other things that may be there," he said.

In one video the Herat group are seen brandishing the guns, which they said were taken from the mainstream Taliban, led by Mullah Haibatullah, after that group attacked them. Eighteen of their rivals were killed in the attack and six were captured, they said.

"These weapons were given to the fighters of Mullah Haibatullah by the Russians via Iran," said their deputy leader, Mullah Abdul Manan Niazi. He went on to repeat the often-heard rationale behind the arming -- which Moscow denies -- that the weapons were supplied to help the Taliban better fight ISIS.

"The Russians are giving them these weapons to fight ISIS in Afghanistan, but they are using them against us too," he said.

The second video was shot nearer Kabul and features a masked Taliban fighter parading arms he says he obtained through the northern province of Kunduz. He said he did not pay for the weapons -- insurgents often pay for guns with opium crops -- and that his group received the guns via the Tajik border.

"These pistols have been brought to us recently," he says. "These are made in Russia, and are very good stuff."

Weapons experts from the Small Arms Survey studied the videos and said there was little in them to directly tie the guns to the Russian state. The weapons were not particularly modern or rare, and even some of the more elaborate additions, like a JGBG M7 scope on one machine gun, were Chinese made and readily available online, they said.

Yet Benjamin King from the Survey said, "the weapons didn't seem to have the manufacturer markings where we would expect them." He said that elsewhere there have been reports of supplying governments and others going to great lengths to remove identification markings from weapons.

"If this is a pattern seen in Afghanistan then it would be noteworthy," he added.

Sediqi, the Afghan government spokesman, said they had put the allegations to Moscow and also received a denial. He added Afghan officials have expressed their concerns about Moscow's contacts with the Taliban, which coalition officials say legitimizes the insurgency.

"The issue of contact with the Taliban with the Russians was something that really concerned us as well," Seddiqi said. "No contact with non-state groups."

More here:
Videos suggest Russian government may be arming Taliban - CNN