Mediaboss Marketing

The Taliban

The United States, and later its anti-terror coalition partners, moved into Afghanistan militarily after the 2001 radical Muslim attacks on Washington and New York City to root out and bring to justice the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans.

Years later, before the Afghans officially took over the mission of their own nations stability, with the close of the International Security Assistance Force Mission at the end of 2014, the U.S. had lost nearly 2,300 military service members, and saw another 20,000 wounded there. At one point the U.S. had about 100,000 members of its military there.

But it now appears that outside help is going to be needed again, as violence has left thousands dead and has surged in ways that now even are impacting its neighbor, Pakistan, and creating international concern, according to a report in Joseph Farahs G2 Bulletin.

For example, the Express-Tribune reported just Friday that a team of Afghan soldiers fired on a census team in Chaman, inside Pakistan, killing at least seven people and injuring another 38.

The report said mortar shells from the Afghanistan side of the border hit houses in a village called Kali Luqman, and at least three children were injured there.

The report contained a statement from Pakistani officials that if such incidents do not stop, Pakistan reserves the right to respond to preserve its sovereignty and protect its civilians.

It is the responsibility of the Afghan government to ensure that such incidents are permanently topped, said a communique from the office of the Pakistani prime minister.

Afghani officials, meanwhile, have been enraged because of previous attacks, including those on American University in Kabul and on Mazar-e-Sharif.

They have been demanding the perpetrators be turned over to Afghanistan, and the conflict was so deep Afghan President Ashraf Ghani recently turned down an invitation to visit Pakistan.

A recent U.S. government report cited the surging violence and bloodshed in Afghanistan. NBC said the report paints a picture of increased violence and bloodshed in the war-torn nation and suggests that preventing the Taliban and other insurgents from increasing their control of the countryside will continue to be a challenge for Afghan security forces.

The report is from the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

The report finds the casualties shockingly high and confirmed that during the first six weeks of 2016, 807 security forces personnel were killed by Taliban factions.

Mass casualty attacks against civilian targets also increased. The report cited an attack that killed 50 people at Afghanistans largest military hospital on March 8 and another that killed two investigators from the Major Crimes Task Force on April 10, NBC said.

The casualties during 2016 totaled 11,418, putting it in line with a full-scale war across the nation.

And the number of Afghans fleeing for the lives up 40 percent from 2015 totaled more than 660,000.

The U.S. report explained how holding insurgents to their own territory was increasingly becoming a challenge for the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces.

For the rest of this report, and more, please go to Joseph Farahs G2 Bulletin.

Follow this link:
Rampant violence in Afghanistan raising new alarms - WND.com

A plan for more troops would be part of a broader set of recommendations on how to adjust the US military approach in Afghanistan that the Pentagon plans to send to President Donald Trump "within the next week," according to Theresa Whelan, the acting assistant secretary of defense for special operations.

The troops, which could consist of special forces personnel and more conventional soldiers, would be part of the NATO-led mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan army and police force in its fight against the Taliban but would also aid the US counterterrorism effort there as well.

Addressing the committee Thursday, Whelan told lawmakers that the proposals are intended "to move beyond the stalemate and also to recognize that Afghanistan is a very important partner for the United States in a very tricky region."

"We want to maintain that partnership with Afghanistan and we want to ensure that Afghanistan reaches its potential, so that's the objective of the strategy," she added.

US Defense Secretary James Mattis traveled to Afghanistan late last month to give the Afghan government his recommendations for US involvement moving forward.

At the time he declined to share what those recommendations were.

But he did say, "We are under no illusions about the challenges associated with this mission," adding that "2017 is going to be another tough year for the valiant Afghan security forces and the international troops who have stood and who will continue to stand should to shoulder with Afghanistan against terrorism."

Top military commanders have said there is a need for additional troops in Afghanistan.

Gen. John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, said in February that the coalition faced "a shortfall of a few thousand" troops to break the "stalemate" it faces there.

Those additional troops would allow US advisers to work with Afghan army units at the brigade level, bringing the Afghan mission more in line with how US advisers operate in Iraq. Currently US advisers are mainly concentrated at the headquarters level, far away from Afghan troops in the field.

There are about 8,400 US troops in Afghanistan. The majority of those forces are involved in training and advising Afghan troops. About 2,000 US servicemembers participate in a counterterrorism mission aimed at targeting groups like al Qaeda and ISIS.

US troops have been present for nearly 16 years in Afghanistan, where the government backed by its coalition allies are battling a resilient Taliban as well as other terror groups including ISIS.

Read the original post:
Pentagon considers sending more troops to Afghanistan as it prepares options for President Trump - CNN

A decision to send additional American troops to Afghanistan, a possibility now being considered by the Trump White House, would provide a welcome boost to Special Operations activities there, a senior military official said Thursday.

Army Gen. Raymond A. Tony ThomasIII, the head of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), said that while no additional Special Operations troops are currently required, the introduction of more conventional troops, whose mission is focused on advising and supporting Afghan forces, would indirectly help special operators, who are tasked chiefly with tracking down al-Qaeda and other extremist fighters in a separate counterterrorism mission.

Giving testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Thomas suggested that an expanded training mission could lessen the need for U.S. Special Operations troops to conduct dangerous missions alongside local forces.

More conventional forces that would thicken the ability to advise and assist Afghan forces that would absolutely be to our benefit, he said.

[U.S. watchdog finds major internal flaws hampering Afghanistan war effort]

The generals remarks come as the White House considers steps to overhaul the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, where security has deteriorated more than 15 years after American troops were first sent to battle the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other militants.

Army Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has said that thousands of additional foreign troops are needed to help the Afghan government fend off a re-energized Taliban insurgency. Struggling to hold on to terrain in a conflict that U.S. officials have described as a stalemate, Afghanistans own forces are taking high casualties and grappling with persistent problems of corruption, desertion and skills gaps.

About three-quarters of the U.S. force of 8,400 stationed in Afghanistan is tasked with training and supporting local forces, while the remainder, largely Special Operations troops, take part in the counterterrorism mission.

In a sign of the challenges ahead, a Taliban attack killed more than 140 people at an Afghan army base last month shortly before Defense Secretary Jim Mattis paid a visit to evaluate conditions in the country.

Late last week, signaling the final stages of a policy review overseen by national security adviser H.R. McMaster, President Trumps top advisers met to discuss the way ahead. The president, who has not spoken extensively about the conflict in Afghanistan, is expected to weigh in ahead of a NATO meeting he will attend May25.

While President Obamas approach to Afghanistan, following his 2009-2011 troop surge, was focused in large part on limiting the U.S. military footprint there, the Trump administration appears willing to commit greater military resources.

In keeping with its emphasis on doling out military burdens among allied nations, it is also seeking an increase in the number of NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Officials are looking not only at a potential troop increase, but also, in keeping with a general push to provide military officials greater flexibility, possible changes to rules that guide U.S. operations there. If approved, those steps could allow U.S. troops to conduct operations with Afghan forces in a wider array of situations and possibly increase the use of American air power.

Theresa Whelan, a senior Pentagon official who testified alongside Thomas, said the Trump administration was actively looking at adjustments to its approach to Afghanistan.

I expect that these proposals will go to the president within the next week, and the intent is to do just that, to move beyond the stalemate, she said.

[U.S. commander in Afghanistan opens door to a few thousand more troops deploying there]

It is not clear whether the Trump administrations review will produce significant changes to the political strategy for Afghanistan. While the United States has strongly backed the countrys unity government, it became less active in recent years in seeking to broker a peace agreement with the Taliban than it had been earlier in the Obama administration.

Thomas suggested that the United States needed to articulate a clearer goal for its involvement in Afghanistan. I think the critical factor is the commitment the commitment to some enduring state that has not been described effectively in the past, he said.

The general spoke on an array of issues related to Special Operations activities, which account for 2percent of military spending and personnel but has been spared the budget and personnel cuts experienced by other areas of the military.

In written testimony, the general addressed what he said was SOCOMs growing focus on the threat posed by North Korea, which has made advances in its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

That has included maintaining a Special Operations presence on the Korean Peninsula and seeking means to ensure that SOCOM, recently put in charge of coordinating the U.S. response to threats from weapons of mass destruction, is ready to use its special operators effectively.

Original post:
Special Operations commander: More troops would aid Afghanistan fight - Washington Post

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Despitethe recent deployment of more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and other heightened efforts to eradicate terrorist groups, especially ISIS, Afghanistans former president, Hamid Karzai, believes the U.S. is in league with ISIS.

"The Daesh is a U.S. product," he told Fox News in an exclusive interview Wednesday in Kabul, using the Arabic word for the extremist Muslim group. "The Daesh -- which is clearly foreign -- emerged in 2015 during the U.S. presence."

Karzai, who was president from December 2004 to September 2014, said he routinely receives reports about unmarked helicopters dropping supplies to the terror faction on the Pakistan and Afghanistan border -- something that the "U.S. must explain."

He also expressed great distress at the dropping of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) last month, convinced it was a joint U.S.-ISIS operation.

"The Daesh had already emptied most of their (families and fighters) so this was coordinated. This group is just a U.S. tool. This cannot be any other tool," he went on. "First, the Daesh comes to drive people away and then the U.S. comes and drops that big bomb ... come on."

In Karzai's view, the U.S. simply wants to use Afghanistan terrain to "test" its toys.

"They [America] think this is no man's land for testing and abuse, but they are wrong about that," he said. "We have a deeply patriotic population here that will not allow this."

He also quibbled with MOABs nickname, Mother of All Bombs, saying it should be DOAB.

"The mother is a kind figure. She does not fit with a bomb," Karzai lamented. "This should be the 'Deadliest of All Bombs.' The casualty is Afghan sovereignty, our soil and, most hurtfully, our dignity. How can they say they are our allies and then bomb us?"

He said several metric tons of chemicals were injected into the ground on MOABs detonation, but when asked if it had been tested said they did not yet have the means to do so.

Karzai said that after that bomb was detonated he decided to destroy the "very nice" letter he had carefully crafted for President Trump, proposing such solutions as the need for less military engagement and alternatives "to rivalry" in the war-stricken country.

"I was about to sign it and then the MOAB came, so I abandoned it," Karzai said. "It was so disrespectful, why would I send him a letter?"

In the early years of his administration Karzai, considered to be the firstdemocratically elected leader of the country, had close ties with President George W. Bush, but relations steadily soured and have hit a further low point since he left office almost three years ago.

In the waning years of his presidency, the Karzai team was widely accused of crony capitalism and immense corruption, accusations he staunchly denies as another U.S. fiction.

"When this [accusations] emerged was when I began to speak out in opposition to the U.S. of spraying all our fields with chemicals," he said. "They used [the accusation of] 'corruption' then as another tool."

Karzai regards as his biggest presidential failure allowing a free market "laissez-faire" economic system, whereby transactions between public and private entities can proceed without government intervention.

"I should have gone with a Scandinavian or Chinese model of economy," he noted. "But other than that, I am happy. I did what I did."

Hollie McKay has been a FoxNews.com staff reporter since 2007. She has reported extensively from the Middle East on the rise and fall of terrorist groups such as ISIS in Iraq. Follow her on twitter at @holliesmckay

Visit link:
US aids ISIS, says Afghanistan's former president | Fox News - Fox News

The Trump administration is poised to double down on U.S. commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, all but ensuring continued American military involvement in both countries for years to come.

The White House is weighing a proposal to send between 3,000 to 5,000 more troops to Afghanistan to deal with the deteriorating security situation there, with both the Taliban and Islamic State increasingly active in parts of the country. With NATO leaders expected to match Washingtons proposed force increases, as many as 10,000 new allied troops may be heading to Afghanistan just as the longest conflict in American history enters its 16th year. Separately, The Associated Press reported that talks have begun with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to allow for a permanent U.S. military presence in the country even after the Islamic State fighters are ousted from Mosul and other strongholds in the country. Officials from Washington and Baghdad confirmed the talks to allow American troops to remain in several bases in Baghdad, as well as positions along the Syrian border and near the ISIS-held city of Mosul, the AP reported Thursday.

There is a general understanding on both sides that it would be in the long-term interests of each to have that continued presence, a U.S. official told the AP, on the condition of anonymity. Mr. Trump and others have criticized the Obama administration for agreeing to what they say was a too-hasty U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, with Islamic State eventually filling the security vacuum three years later.

On Afghanistan, Theresa Whelan, who oversees the Pentagons special operations forces, said Thursday that the departments proposals on troop levels could reach the presidents desk as early as next week.

We are actually actively looking at adjustments to the approach in Afghanistan right now, Ms. Whelan told the Senate Armed Services Committee, adding that the Pentagons intent is to move beyond the stalemate and also to recognize that Afghanistan is a very important partner for the United States in a very tricky region.

Roughly 9,000 American service members are deployed in Afghanistan, training and advising Afghan National Security Forces under Operation Resolute Support. A smaller number of U.S. special operations units are also battling the Taliban and a resurgent Islamic State.

Thousands of U.S. troops began returning to Iraq in 2015, in an effort to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces battling to roll back ISIS control in the countrys north, centered on Mosul. Iraqi forces backed by U.S. artillery and air power have retaken the eastern half of the city, and are battling to reclaim the western half in brutal urban combat.

Col. John Dorian, the top U.S. spokesman in Iraq, said Wednesday the Pentagon was committed to maintaining a presence in Iraq once ISIS is flushed from the country.

Our support to the government of Iraq is going to remain the same type of relationship that we continued with them throughout the [ISIS] campaign, he told reporters during a briefing from Baghdad.

While an increased U.S. military commitment in Iraq could build on recent battlefield victories against ISIS, the proposed U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan is needed to break the stalemate in the war there. Since the U.S. combat mission ended in 2014, Afghan forces have managed to secure control just over 60 percent of the country.

On Thursday, U.S. Special Operations Command chief Gen. Raymond Thomas refused to characterize the Afghan War as a stalemate, but did question the level of commitment to the war effort by the Obama administration.

More conventional forces that would thicken the ability to advise and assist Afghan forces, that would absolutely be to our benefit, Gen. Thomas said.

View post:
U.S. may send up to 5000 more troops to Afghanistan - Washington Times