Mediaboss Marketing

Afghans perform prayers at the funeral for the victims killed by an air strike called in to protect Afghan and US forces during a raid on suspected Taliban militants, in Kunduz, Afghanistan November 4, 2016.

(Washington, DC) The US Defense Department should promptly adopt measures to better protect civilians in the Afghanistan armed conflict, Human Rights Watch said in a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis. The US government is currently conducting a review of its Afghanistan strategy and support to the Afghan government in its efforts against the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Islamic State-affiliated armed groups.

Increasing numbers of civilian deaths and injuries from US airstrikes in Afghanistan raise concerns that the procedures for vetting airstrikes are inadequate, said Brad Adams, Asia director. The US review of its Afghan strategy is a crucial opportunity for adopting changes to minimize civilian casualties.

Asia Director

Civilian casualties in Afghanistan have steadily risen in recent years, with 2016 seeingthe highest toll recorded since 2008 with a total of 11,418 (3,498 deaths and 7,920 injured), according to the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA). While the Taliban and other insurgent forces have caused most of these casualties through deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, casualties caused by US and Afghan forces have also been on the rise.

A recent UNAMA report shows that in 2016, aerial operations by US and Afghan government forces resulted in the deaths of 250 civilians and injuries to 340 others, which is nearly double the total from the previous year. Aerial operations remained the second leading cause of civilian casualties by Afghan government forces in 2016, causing 43 percent of civilian casualties.

Most support for Afghan air operations has come from the US military, though Afghan civilian casualty tracking and mitigation measures are significantly lacking. NATO has provided guidance to the Afghan government in developing its own civilian casualty mitigation policy, which reportedly remains under review by Afghan authorities.

Go here to see the original:
US: Improve Civilian Protection in Afghanistan - Human Rights Watch

Media Matters for America

Blackwater Founder Erik Prince: "We Should Fight" In Afghanistan With Armies Run By Companies Media Matters for America TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): So, Afghanistan, the president apparently is considering sending more US troops there. You've spent a lot of time there and in that region, and you have an idea for what we should do with Afghanistan. What is it? ERIK PRINCE: ...

More:
Blackwater Founder Erik Prince: "We Should Fight" In Afghanistan With Armies Run By Companies - Media Matters for America

President Trump is expected to decide this month whether to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, where a strengthening Taliban insurgency threatens the 15-year war effort.

Pentagon officials are drawing up plans to add 3,000 to 5,000 personnel to the U.S.-led NATO training mission, arguing that the additional troops could work more closely with Afghan soldiers and police, who are suffering heavy casualties, and force the Taliban to the negotiating table.

Trump has rarely spoken about the Afghan conflict, the longest in U.S. history, but a massive bombing that targeted Islamic State last month signaled that the White House has given military commanders broader authority to use force.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and his top lieutenants also support a U.S. troop increase as violence has increased and the Taliban has grabbed control of roughly 40% of the country since Afghan forces took responsibility for security in January 2015.

About 9,800 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan, the fewest since the months immediately after the 2001 American-led invasion. President Obama increased the U.S. troop presence to nearly 100,000 before beginning a phased withdrawal in 2012.

The American personnel are focused on training and advising Afghan security forces, although U.S. troops are increasingly being drawn into direct combat against the Taliban and Islamic State loyalists.

For Afghans who have endured nearly four straight decades of conflict, the prospect of additional U.S. troops is deeply controversial. Some view it as a much-needed lifeline for a flailing government; others worry it will add fuel to the insurgency and extend a war that has already killed more than 30,000 civilians.

Here is a sampling of their views:

Ahmad Shaheer, a social activist in Kabul, the capital, said more troops wont necessarily mean greater security. Afghanistan, he said, once had 10 times the current number of U.S. troops and much more international military equipment and they did not bring peace.

Shaheer also believes that Afghanistans economic struggles and persistent unemployment help the insurgency recruit jobless young Afghans to its cause.

A solid improvement [in security] depends on extensive action in in different fields, such as making Afghanistan self-sufficient economically and militarily, Shaheer said.

With more troops, the number of terrorists would also increase. And Im afraid that the war wont end if the U.S. sees adding troops or focusing on counter-terrorism as the only solutions.

Retired Gen. Atiqullah Amarkhail, a Kabul-based military analyst, said Afghanistans 350,000 soldiers and police remain dependent on U.S. funding. Since October 2001, the United States has spent more than $66 billion to train, supply and equip Afghan forces.

There are pluses and minuses to the prospect of a few thousand more U.S. troops, he said.

Its good for the Afghan security forces to get more support, Amarkhail said. But the benefits could be limited because of the resilience of the Taliban and allied insurgents.

Terrorist groups would actively take different measures to cope with the bigger challenge, Amarkhail said.

Since U.S.-led NATO forces departed a military base in the eastern province of Ghazni in 2014, Lt. Sediq Serat said, Afghan soldiers have faced a shortage of ammunition, delays in repairing vehicles and transferring wounded soldiers, and more corruption.

Our international advisors were taking immediate action to solve our problems, Serat said by phone from Ghazni. They were writing down our essential needs when they visited our camps and bases and telling their commanders, and we were getting quick results.

Serat said that his unit was still relying on the weapons, artillery, ammunition and training that the NATO forces left behind in 2014.

I wish the [troop] increase would be 10 times more than the number that is being considered, he said.

Fariha Khoshiwal, an agriculture student at Kabul University, said more U.S. troops will only prolong the conflict that has raged for two-thirds of her young life.

Whenever the decision to send more international troops comes out, the Taliban intensify their attacks, said Khoshiwal, 22. In any military operation by the Afghan security forces or U.S. troops, or in terrorist attacks by the Taliban or Islamic State, it is mostly civilians who suffer casualties.

We want an end to this war, not an increase of troops.

Law student Fazel Nazim said more troops wont help Afghanistan without a coherent strategy for ending the war.

We dont have a clear definition of the enemy, said the 25-year-old Nazim as he left classes. Sometimes our politicians call the Taliban brothers, some others call them enemies. Even the international community doesnt have a single definition for the Taliban: Sometimes they put their names on a blacklist and target them everywhere, but at the same time they allow them to open an office abroad.

Nazim was referring to the establishment of a Taliban political office in 2013 in the Persian Gulf nation of Qatar, which was supposed to facilitate the insurgents entry into peace talks. But hopes for negotiations between the Taliban and the Kabul government have dimmed as violence worsens.

In such a scenario, the increase of troops will not have any positive effects because we had [many] times more troops in the past, Nazim said.

Rafiullah Kaleem, a reporter for an Arabic-language news channel, said more international troops wont help address what he believes is the greatest challenge facing Afghan forces: corruption.

He said top officials continue to enrich themselves with logistical contracts and appoint the relatives of former warlords to key positions, bypassing career professionals.

Whats keeping Afghanistan from victory is corruption. The priority should be to focus on the main threats that come from inside and support initiatives that are helping to fight corruption and most importantly the culture of impunity, which is inherited from four decades of civil war, Kaleem said.

Shafiq Ghafari, a Kabul taxi driver, said Afghanistan felt more secure when there were more U.S. troops.

Although 5,000 [more troops] is not a big number, that could make a significant change in security, it would have some impact, Ghafari said as he drove through the city in his lovingly maintained Toyota hatchback.

If he were defense minister, Ghafari would spread additional U.S. forces across each of Afghanistans 34 provinces.

I think about 500 troops should be placed in each province to directly launch ground operations, because Afghan forces have been suffering heavy casualties since U.S. troops withdrew from the battlefield, he said.

Shabeer Ahmad Ibrahimi, a university lecturer in Islamic law, said the war can be resolved only by Afghans, not international forces.

Since a deployment of more than 100,000 foreign troops couldnt bring peace, the 33-year-old Ibrahimi said, Afghanistan should hold a grand jirga, or conference, of representatives of the government, militant factions and ethnic groups to arrive at a peaceful settlement.

The situation in Afghanistan has no military solution, he said.

Special correspondent Faizy reported from Kabul and Times staff writer Bengali from Mumbai, India.

shashank.bengali@latimes.com

Follow @SBengali on Twitter for more news from South Asia

ALSO

In Afghanistan, an elite female police officer battles cultural taboos as well as the Taliban

How Trump will deal with America's longest war is anyone's guess

These boys were born the year the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. Here's what their lives are like today

See the original post:
Hope. Concern. Resignation. Afghans have mixed feelings about the possibility of more US troops - Los Angeles Times

A Marine Corps task force newly deployed to Afghanistans most violent province could need additional troops or other resources, depending on what policy decisions that Washington makes for Afghanistan, said the top officer in the task force.

Brig. Gen. Roger B. Turner Jr., asked what additional forces would be helpful, said that his unit has enough capabilities, capacities and authorities now but that if the mission grows, then were not going to have enough to do what we need to do. His terminology describes not only the number of troops his unit has but the kinds of operations they are trained to do and what rules they must follow.

The comments come as the Trump administration weighs adding several thousand U.S. troops across Afghanistan to the 8,400 present to boost the abilities of Afghan security forces, which have suffered thousands of fatalities in each of the past few years. President Trump is expected to make a decision on the plan this month, U.S. officials said.

[Thousands of Marines fought in southern Afghanistan. Now, the service is going back.]

Turners unit, known as Task Force Southwest, numbers about 300 service members and replaced an Army unit named Task Force Forge on April 29. The new mission returns Marines to a part of Afghanistan where more than 20,000 were based in 2010 and 2011 at the height of a troop surge that included more than 100,000 U.S. troops across the country.

Helmand province has long been considered Afghanistans most violent province and was the site of hundreds of Marine deaths between 2008 and 2014. Security across Helmand has continued to deteriorate on the whole since the Marines left a point illustrated recently in March, when Afghan soldiers in Helmands hotly contested Sangin district moved their base of operations out of the districts center after months of conflictwith Taliban fighters.

The Marine task forces headquarters is at Camp Shorab, an Afghan base that was once the site of a sprawling Marine installation known as Camp Leatherneck. Thousands of Marines worked from there as combat troops fanned out across Helmand province in small formations, patrolling on a daily basis.

Turner, speaking from his headquarters Friday, said that none of his troops have seen any combat in their first few weeks deployed, but they are traveling from Camp Shorab regularly. Task force advisers also are based in Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital, and have already visited the headquarters of each brigade of Afghan troops with which the unit partnered.

Were still seeing a lot of the same activity that we were seeing years ago from the Taliban. They are still scattering IEDs everywhere, the general said, referring to improvised explosive devices. They still kind of indiscriminately target people. They arrest people, they put them in jails, and they extort their families and they extort the farmers for their poppy production and tax them. . . . Its more of the same.

The task force assists the Afghan armys 215th Corps and Afghan police from the 505th Zone, which combine to provide security in Helmand. U.S. military officials say the advising comes at the corps level, meaning it focuses primarily on advising upper echelons of Afghan leaders in the region. The Trump administration and the Afghan government are mulling the placement of more U.S. advisers alongside Afghan officers who lead smaller battalion-size formations.

[Band-Aid on a bullet wound: What Americas new war looks like in Afghanistans most violent province]

Turner said the Marines returned to Helmand to find that some of the same Afghan military and police officials they worked with during the surge, which occurred from late 2009 to late 2014, are still influential. Significant territory in Helmand province was lost to the Taliban in 2016, but Turner said that his advisers have found that past work the U.S. military put into training Afghan forces has not been lost.

I think maybe thats a narrative thats out there, he said. That these forces have been completely degradated, and thats just not true. Some of their combat capability might be degraded, but everything is still there and if some of these issues are fixed, they can be back up to where they were in 2012, 13, 14.

Turner said that he has found that there are places where Afghan brigades are already capable and that adding U.S. advisers to the mix actually would be step backwards. In other places, he said, it could be helpful. He cited issues such as paying soldiers and maintaining vehicles, both of which require coordination with the central government.

Its really about understanding what tasks are coming down the Afghan chain, he said. What are they being tasked to do by the [Interior Ministry] or [Defense Ministry] and the president of Afghanistan, what is their capability and capacity to accomplish those missions, and how can we support them in that?

See the rest here:
Marines are back in Afghanistan's most violent province, and their mission could expand - Washington Post

More than a thousand miles of harsh, mountainous terrain separates Pakistan and Afghanistan. The border is notoriously porous and difficult to enforce, as invading armies have learned and its been a source of contention between the two governments for decades.

The Durand Line establishing the border was drawn in the 1890s, by British representatives from Afghanistan and what was then British India. It split the land of ethnic Pashtuns nearly in half. Pakistan inherited the border when it gained independence in 1947, but Afghanistan has never officially recognized it. Pashtuns living on either side of the border traditionally havent paid it much attention they often have more in common with each other than with their respective countries.

Things remain tense in the disputed border area, however. Fighting broke out again recently when a Pakistani census group accompanied by soldiers visited villages there, and at least eight civilians were killed.

But officials in Pakistan and Afghanistan are signaling that they may be ready fordtente. Both sides have agreed to a thoroughly modern solution: using Google Maps and GPS to conduct a geological survey and settle the border issue for good.

The process is likely to mirror the original marking of the Durand Line. Back then, representatives pored over maps to negotiate a route before walking it, hammering posts into the ground every few miles.

Now, officials from both countries can walk that border with the GPS, and they can create the digital equivalent of those border posts that they originally marked over 100 years ago, said Steven Feldman, a digital mapping consultant based in London. The digital posts can then be turned into the countries borders on Google Maps.

But, Feldman said, the technology is just a tool Pakistan and Afghanistan first have to agree where that border is. Im not certain that Google Maps is the answer to their problems.

Maps reflect political realities, and Google has what Steven Feldman calls a hierarchy of rules when it depicts countries. Most borders are widely acknowledged by the international community, and Google denotes these on its maps with a solid line. For disputed places like Palestine, Kashmir, or Crimea, it gets a little more complicated. Google tries to defer to the judgment of international bodies, and it marks contested borders with dotted lines.

But the Google map you see can be entirely different depending on where youre viewing it from. Thats because Google must follow the laws of countries it operates in. The Crimean Peninsula was controlled by Ukraine until Russia invaded in 2014. In Russia, according to the law, Crimea is shown to be part of the country with a solid black line. But in Ukraine and most of the world, Google Maps demarcates Crimea with a dotted line.

Google Maps is a private company, Feldman said, and shouldnt be called upon to arbitrate clashes on the international stage. It's only states that can bring about dialogue and compromise.

Yet Google is now the largest mapmaker in the world, and as a result, it frequently gets sucked into geopolitics, willingly or not.

I guess, naively perhaps, we hoped we could have one global map of the world that everyone used, but politics is complicated, Ed Parsons, Googles geospatial technologist, told The Independent. Google did not immediately respond to The World's request for comment.

The company has been the target of social media campaigns and petitionsfor not drawing a solid line around Palestine, and sometimes the stakes have been even higher: In 2010, when Google data mistakenly gave a chunk of Costa Rica to Nicaragua, troops were deployed on both sides before the map could be fixed.

Read more from the original source:
How Google Maps could help settle the Afghanistan-Pakistan border dispute - PRI