Mediaboss Marketing

The attack began Sunday morning when a suicide bomber detonated a car laden with explosives at the main entrance of the police headquarters in the eastern city of Gardez in Paktia province.

The blast cleared the way for the other six attackers who stormed the police station and targeted Afghan officers.

Najib Danish, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said two gunmen were immediately killed by Afghan police, while the other others held out for hours. It took Afghan security forces most of the day to kill the last gunmen.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement.

"Around 6:20 (local time) this morning, a martyr attack was conducted by our mujahideen against a special forces base in Gardez, Paktia," Mujahid said.

"First a car bomb detonated then our mujahideen entered the building, opening fire on police," he added.

In April, the Taliban launched their "spring offensive" against Afghan and international forces stationed in the war-torn country.

Read:Opinion: Observe and reflect on Afghanistan

A massive truck bomb killed at least 90 people in the Afghan capital Kabul on May 31, 2017. The target of the attack was Kabul's heavily fortified diplomatic area in the "Green Zone." The German embassy in the area was extensively damaged. No group claimed responsibility for the attack but the Taliban and the self-styled "Islamic State" (IS) have staged large attacks in the city in the past.

The blast in Kabul's diplomatic enclave was the latest in a long line of attacks on the Afghan capital. Earlier in May, eight foreign soldiers were killed in a bomb attack claimed by IS. In March, insurgents attacked an Afghan military hospital in Kabul's diplomatic district, killing 38 people and injuring more than 70 others, namely patients, doctors and nurses.

In April, Afghanistan's Taliban vowed to ramp up assaults on coalition and Afghan security forces, announcing the start of their annual spring offensive. The group said they were changing tactics for this year's operation, naming it "Operation Mansour" after the group's late leader who was killed in 2016 in a US drone strike.

US President Donald Trump has yet to announce his Afghanistan policy. Afghanistan expert Michael Kugleman told DW Trump's Afghanistan policy will in many ways be quite similar to that of the Obama administration. "Like Obama, Trump will likely also express support for the idea of reconciliation between the Taliban and the Afghan government," said Kugelman.

But the Taliban have shown no interest in peace talks. Afghanistan observers say it is unlikely that the militant group will engage in any negotiations as they currently have the upper hand on the battleground. The Islamists now control more Afghan districts than at any other time since 2001.

President Ghani said last year his country "no longer expects Pakistan to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table." Experts say Islamabad uses Taliban militants as proxy jihadists to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan. Former Pakistani Taliban spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan (pictured), was recently captured and pardoned by Islamabad after he accused India of supporting the Taliban.

Apart from the Taliban, the Afghan warlords excercise massive influence in the country. Earlier in May, Hizb-i-Islami leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar returned to Kabul after a 20-year exile to play an active role in Afghan politics. In September 2016, the Afghan government signed a deal with Hekmatyar in the hope that other warlords and militant groups would seek better ties with Kabul.

Russia has increased its involvement in Afghanistan. Moscow had maintained an apparent distance from the Afghan conflict for many years but a new geopolitical situation is emerging in the region, and it seems that Russia has decided not to remain "neutral" in the protracted conflict. In the past few months, Russia has hosted a number of Afghanistan conferences involving China, Pakistan and Iran.

In the midst of an endless battle for power, President Ghani's approval ratings continue to plummet. Rampant corruption in the Afghan government and a long tug-of-war within the US-brokered national unity government has had a negative impact on the government's efforts to eradicate terrorism.

Author: Shamil Shams

Deteriorating security situation

The so-called "Islamic State" (IS) militant group and the Taliban have launched numerous attacks in Afghanistan in the past few months, with experts saying that President Ashraf Ghani's government is failing to protect citizens.

Read:'China and Russia want US out of Afghanistan'

"The security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated further. Afghan security forces control only about 57 percent of the country's territory. Around 2.5 million people live in areas controlled by the Taliban and nine million more live in contested areas," Nicole Birtsch, an Afghanistan researcher at the Berlin-based think tank, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), told DW.

"The number of civilian victims, including many children, remains high. And many people are internally displaced due to the fighting between government forces and the Taliban," she added.

Sunday's attack came as the Pentagon is getting ready to send some 4,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan.

The latest wave of US troops will mainly be deployed to train and advise Afghan forces, following warnings by top US commanders in the region that the local military was facing a resurgent Taliban and a rising threat posed by IS.

Read:Afghan soldier attacks US troops near Mazar-i-Sharif

Follow this link:
Taliban storm police headquarter in eastern Afghanistan ...

Two world figures recently weighed in on the never-ending war in Afghanistan with opposing positions: U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced a troop surge, while United Nations Secretary-General Antnio Guterres called for a political solution. Neither seems to think the others approach will work.

The answer may lie somewhere between the two. I dont see this war ending until someone forces Pakistan to stop harboring terrorist groups that keep Afghanistan destabilized.

Its possible that can be achieved with both the carrot and the stick a combination of diplomacy and military strength but nobody in power seems to be seriously addressing the real problem.

In an unannounced visit to Kabul, UN Secretary-General Guterres said, The international community, the neighboring countries related to the Afghan crisis need to come together to understand that this is a war that has no military solution, that we need to have a political solution, we need to have peace.

His words came on the heels of Gen. Mattis decision to send about 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Mattis pledged, We will not repeat the mistakes of the past, and concluded with: Working with the Afghan government and our allies and partners, we will achieve victory against the terrorists abroad.

Gen. Mattis is a respected military officer who sees through the eyes of a warrior. Its not uncommon for a general to ask for more time and more troops. Unfortunately, he is taking the same road that took us nowhere before.

For the past 10 years, we have seen many operations under different names conducted by the U.S and its allies, each celebrated as victory, while bombs wasted countless lives and treasure as Afghan civilians suffered.

I recall talking to one of Gen. David Petraeus staff members in 2011, who told me the general had a new strategy and was reading a book about an ancient warrior whose approach was to choke his victim as does a boa constrictor. Gen. Petraeus would suffocate the Taliban insurgency.

I also remember when British general and NATO commander Nick Carter claimed victory because he was able to travel safely by car from Kandahar to the Spin Boldak district. Some among the U.S. military resented Gen. Carters claim because they also fought hard for the victory.

But was it a victory? Today, the Taliban roam those same areas freely, as they do in most of rural Afghanistan.

The lesson from Afghan history is that more troops alone will not defeat the insurgency, and that lesson continues to be ignored. Gen. Mattis should revisit the history of foreign intervention in this country.

Nearly four decades ago, the Soviet Union sent more than 100,000 troops into Afghanistan. The Red Army fought for nine years, then left in defeat. U.S. forces have been fighting in Afghanistan for 16 years, and Gen. Mattis himself admitted last week that we are not winning in Afghanistan right now.

Why? Because the insurgents have a safe haven where they can train, rest and launch attacks: Pakistan, home of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which believes it has a national interest in countering rival Indias influence in Afghanistan.

If nearly 109,000 Soviet troops failed to uproot the insurgency, what a difference will 4,000 U.S. troops make?

Hope remains lost until there is fundamental change in Pakistans military establishment specifically, the ISI, which thinks it has a right to meddle inside the borders of its western neighbor, Afghanistan. Staffed primarily by members of Pakistans armed forces, the ISI has been working to keep its neighbor weak and under its thumb a destructive belief left over from the imperial era.

The ISI is engaged in a political Jurassic Park-type experiment. Dozens of terrorist groups are allowed to thrive inside Pakistan, but its looking more like the end of the Jurassic Park movie when the raptors become a voracious threat to the stability of Pakistan itself, as well as to central Asia.

The ISI may be patting itself on the back for milking the U.S. and its allies of cash in return for fighting terrorism while at the same time drone-bombing Pashtun tribes in Waziristan and giving sanctuary to terrorist groups, including Taliban leaders. But perhaps they are coming to a tipping point.

The Trump administration may be ambiguous about the Afghanistan situation, but Congress and the Defense Department seem fed up with Pakistans deceptive policies.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said, The sovereign nation of Pakistan is engaging in hostile acts against the United States and our ally Afghanistan that must cease, adding that military action should be an option.

Also, China has a strong motive to pressure Pakistan out of its hostile actions: Chinas trillion-dollar Belt and Road project a resurrection of the old Silk Road trade route between Asia and Europe will pass through northern Afghanistan. If Pakistan continues to use terrorist groups like the Taliban and the Haqqani network to disrupt Afghanistan, it could damage Chinas economic interests.

President Xi Jinping recently met with Afghan president Ashraf Ghani in Astana and offered to mediate between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Xi Jinping pointed out that China considers Afghanistan a friend and will play a constructive role in advancing Afghanistans peaceful reconstruction and reconciliation process.

For its part, Pakistan gives lip service to redemption; Gen. Mattis said he spoke by phone to Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, Pakistans chief of army staff, who reiterated Pakistans commitment to counter all militant groups operating in its territory.

Weve heard such statements before. So far, nothing has changed on the ground, and Afghanistan remains embroiled in a war without end.

Gen. Mattis 4,000 extra troops wont change it, nor will Secretary-General Guterres diplomacy. But maybe both of those approaches, combined with pressure from an economically motivated China? We can hope and dream.

Excerpt from:
Troop Surge Won't Save Afghanistan - HuffPost

Pakistan says it will soon begin building a fence along its volatile border with Afghanistan to improve security, a move that has sparked condemnations in Kabul.

The Pakistani Army said in a statement on June 20 that the first phase of fencing will focus on the Bajur, Mohmand, and Khyber tribal regions -- all regarded by authorities as areas prone to cross-border infiltration by various militant groups.

The statement also said that new forts and border posts will be built to improve defense and surveillance along the frontier.

A secure border "is in the common interest of both countries and a well-coordinated border-security mechanism is essential for enduring peace and stability," the statement said.

Afghan authorities, however, are opposed to the building of the fence.

The Associated Press news agency quoted Najib Danish, deputy spokesman for Afghanistan's Interior Ministry, as saying, "Pakistan has no right to fence or construct any building along the border with Afghanistan.

Danish warned of retaliatory action, referring to previous clashes that erupted when Pakistan sought to build border fortifications.

The two countries share a 2,400-kilometer border known as the Durand Line, which Pakistan considers to be an international border but Afghanistan has never recognized.

Afghanistan and Pakistan often accuse each other of turning a blind eye to militant groups operating along their porous border.

Read the original here:
Pakistan Begins Fencing Border With Afghanistan - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Given the perennial concern over whether Test cricket a slow-paced, tradition-bound game in which matches can last five days is a sport out of sync with the time pressures of the modern world, the elevation of Ireland and Afghanistan could help the format. It almost certainly will be presented as a response to the now-common criticism that the I.C.C. has failed to do enough to broaden the appeal of cricket beyond its historical power bases.

Critics of the games leadership had long thought that new Test nations would never be admitted, given the perceived unwillingness of crickets largest countries above all Australia, England and India to share the sports wealth.

The vote will take place at the I.C.C. Annual Conference in London. One rationale for advancing the two nations at the same time is that the votes they would acquire as full members would maintain the existing balance of power between Asian nations and the rest of the world.

Afghanistans journey to crickets elite has been particularly remarkable; its promotion to Test status is expected to come only 13 years after the national teams first official international fixture.

The sport first took hold among Afghan refugees living in Pakistan during the 1980s, after they had fled the countrys war against the Soviet Union. Many Afghans came to learn the game by watching locals play it or after seeing it on television. Kacha Garhi, a refugee camp in Peshawar, was a hotbed of Afghan talent.

In 1995, Allah Dad Noori, a refugee returning to Kabul, formed the Afghanistan Cricket Federation (since renamed the Afghan Cricket Board). The sport was allowed to exist under the Taliban regime that ruled the country at the time, Afghans said, largely because of its conservative dress code and because, rather than being viewed as an English or Western sport, it was instead seen as a Pakistani import. The Taliban, in fact, encouraged the cricket federation to apply for I.C.C. membership, which was granted in June 2001.

With a team composed of former refugees and supported by a diverse array of foreign governments, including Germany, Sweden and the United States, Afghanistan soared up international crickets lower rankings.

In 2010, Afghanistan qualified for the World Twenty20 the international championship of the fast-paced hybrid of Twenty20 cricket and five years later it made its first appearance in its first Cricket World Cup, which is played in the one-day international format.

Today, Afghanistan is ranked in the top 10 in both one-day internationals and T20 cricket. Afghanistan also has built a formidable cricket player pool as well as a youth system that has eroded the countrys past reliance on refugees from Pakistan. The sport has also helped unify the countrys disparate groups. It brings peace to every tribe, Mohammad Nabi, Afghanistans former captain, said.

Ireland has overcome different obstacles. While cricket has deep roots in Ireland and had appeal throughout the country during the second half of the 19th century, the sport suffered for its associations with England. Cricket was widely viewed as an English sport, especially in the Republic of Ireland. Ed Joyce, a leading Irish batsman, has said that as a boy he regularly hid his cricket equipment when traveling on trains in Dublin.

An all-Ireland team formally joined the I.C.C. in 1993, but the sports progress in the country remained slow. In 2001, Ireland used a journalist as a substitute fielder during a qualification tournament. It was Mickey Mouse cricket, Joyce later said.

Even as Ireland defeated Test opposition in three consecutive World Cups and developed a homegrown team, its bids for Test status were ignored, and its cricket board was left frustrated when three top players switched to play for England.

Uncertainties remain; it is unclear if I.C.C. payouts to Ireland and Afghanistan will match those to other Test nations, and the Afghans still cannot play on home soil for security reasons. But that will scarcely detract from either countries sense of achievement.

Its pretty extraordinary, said Paul Stirling, an Ireland cricketer. It is the pinnacle of the game.

Link:
Afghanistan and Ireland Are Poised to Join Cricket's Elite - New York Times

WASHINGTON: Pakistan's Ambassador to the US Aizaz Chaudhry today faced some blunt and tough questions from his Afghan counterpart about Islamabad's destabilisation and terrorist activities inside Afghanistan.

"We call it an undeclared war because the objectives are not set. We don't know what the objectives are for Pakistan. And that's something that we have been trying to discover," Afghan Ambassador to the US Hamdullah Mohib told an audience at an event organised by Indus Think-tank here.

In an unusual aggressive mode, reflecting the new tough approach being adopted by the Afghan government, Mohib said that Kabul is not sure who to talk to in Pakistan.

"But which Pakistan? The Pakistan that occupies by a militant group, by a military, or the Pakistan of the civilians?" Mohib asked.

He said the Pakistan government led by the civilians doesn't have a voice and the reality is that policies are made by the military which uses militancy as a foreign policy.

The Afghan diplomat warned that there is a new generation on the rise in the military, the generation that has been trained by former dictator Gen Zia-ul-Haq and that is going to take over Pakistan in the next decade or so.

"Once it does, this is no longer going to be a military that's trying to use extremism as a tool for foreign policy," he said, adding that it will be an extremist military that is going to be over a million strong, with very sophisticated intelligence, plus nuclear arms.

He said it will take four decades to clear Pakistan from that generation of extremists.

"We're not just worried about today's militancy...We're worried about next four decades of our lives...not just us, the world should worry. Every weapon, anything you sell to Pakistan today, will be used against it," he warned.

The Afghan diplomat said this is a message to the Chinese, a message to America and a message to Europeans.

Mohib said the Afghan government is confused. "If we cooperate with the military more, are we emboldening, are we encouraging more of a military Pakistan? Or are we solving our problem because it's always difficult on who we are talking to that has the authority to resolve the problem?" he asked.

A visibly upset Chaudhry took an exception to the remarks of his Afghan counterpart and alleged that Afghanistan has now resorted to blame game against Pakistan.

"It's not something new. We have heard for the last one and half years to two years...a mantra along these lines. And much more hostile rhetoric has been voiced. But it has been our view that we would not respond to that hostility...We do not think that blame game would get any country far," he said.

Stating that it was too easy to say that all the ills of today's Afghanistan are because of his country, the Pakistani diplomat said that there are a host of issues that pervade Afghanistan, including government issues, corruption issues, weakening of the Afghanistan national security forces issues, graft, production and debt paid issues, and economic issues.

He told the Afghan diplomat that putting the blame on Pakistan would, at best, deflect attention from the real causes of instability in Afghanistan.

Chaudhry said Afghanistan needs to focus inward, and see in itself what is it that it needs to do.

"We need to be realistic, instead of hurling blame all the time, as we say, we need a friendship, we need a cooperative spirit," he said, highlighting a meeting between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Ashraf Ghani on the sidelines of SCO Summit in Astana, Kazakhstan.

Chaudhry said the two countries would now be holding consultations to prepare some kind of mechanism to coordinate the actions against terrorist.

"These terrorists are nobody's friend. We would not like to see Taliban come to power by force in Afghanistan. And we have made it very clear that they do not represent Pakistan in any manner. And we are squeezing space on them. Therefore, we would humbly suggest to curb this tendency of scapegoating Pakistan, because that will not solve the issue," he said.

More here:
We are fighting an undeclared war with Pakistan: Afghanistan envoy - Economic Times