Mediaboss Marketing

Official Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Mark Fayloga

According to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the situation in Afghanistan is a stalemate that will require additional U.S. and coalition forces. The senators cite testimony by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, to the Senate Armed Services Committee in which he said he needed several thousand more troops. There are currently about 8,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus another 6,300 troops from other countries. So will a few thousand more soldierspresumably Americanmake a difference?

The clear answer is no.

The rule of thumb for successful counterinsurgencylargely practiced by the Britishis a requirement of 20 troops per 1,000 civilians, which is the standard set in the U.S. Armys counterinsurgency manual. With a population of about 32 million, that means a force of 640,000 troops would be needed in Afghanistan. (For a sense of scale, consider that the total U.S. Army active duty force is less than 500,000 soldiers). Indeed, you would probably have to combine the whole of the U.S. Army with the entire Afghan army of 183,000 soldiers to meet the requirement. Adding a couple thousand troops to some 15,000 U.S. and coalition forces already in Afghanistan is hardly enough.

To be fair to Senators McCain and Graham, its not all of Afghanistan that requires counterinsurgency operations. According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, out of the countrys 407 districts, 133 are contested and another 41 are either under insurgent control or influence. These represent a population of almost 12 million people, which would require 240,000 troops. Even this would be a bridge too far for U.S. and coalition forces. If the entire Afghan armya little less than 200,000 soldiersshouldered the bulk of responsibility, it would still require another 25,000 U.S. and coalition troops beyond those currently deployed in Afghanistan.

But counterinsurgency is more than just troop levels. Successful counterinsurgency requires the use of harsheven brutaland indiscriminate military force to impose security and order. Again, the British example is a good one, such as when their forces put down the Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya in the 1950s. The problem with such tactics is that while such action may kill the enemy, it also all too often results in killing innocent civilians, no matter how hard we try to avoid collateral damage. Last year, air strikes caused 590 civilian casualties, including 250 deaths, nearly double the number in 2015 and the highest since 2009. More recently, air strikes in the Helmand province are believed to have killed more than a dozen civilians, mostly women and children.

The inevitable result of this collateral damage is alienation of the civilian population, which makes them more sympathetic to the insurgents. Indeed, this is one of the most important lessons of the last decade and a half.

Most importantly, the threat in Afghanistan doesnt warrant a continued U.S. military presence.

McCain and Graham believe we must confront the Taliban, al Qaeda, the Haqqani network, and the Islamic State. But the Taliban is largely vying for power in Afghanistan and is not waging a global war against the U.S. Al-Qaeda is certainly a threat within Afghanistan, but does not necessarily pose the same terrorist threat to America as pre-9/11 al Qaeda did. The Haqqani network is nationalist in nature and wants foreign troops to withdraw from Afghanistan, and foreign countries to stop interfering in the internal politics of Muslim countries. And ISIS seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate in the heart of the Muslim world.

What they have in common is that they are all Sunni Arab groups seeking to impose their version of Islamic Sharia law in Afghanistanbut ISIS actually opposes the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Haqqani network. All four of these groups are internal threats to the Afghan government, but none are direct military or terrorist threatslet alone existential threatsto the United States that require us to spend billions more dollars and risk American lives to defeat them.

Theirs is a war within the Muslim world. In Afghanistan, it is a war that can only be fought and won by the Afghans.

Charles V. Pea is a senior fellow with Defense Priorities and author of Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism.You can follow him on Twitter @gofastchuck.

View post:
We Can't 'Win' Afghanistan | The American Conservative - The American Conservative

ISLAMABAD

Britain is being credited with an apparent reduction in political tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan and reopening the border between the two countries.

Pakistans interior minister, Nisar Ali Khan, acknowledged and appreciated the diplomatic intervention Tuesday while addressing a joint news conference in Islamabad with visiting British Home Secretary Amber Rudd.

That facilitation took place through the good offices of her majestys government and as a result of the discussions that took place, you have already seen some positive movements in defusing tensions and doubts between Afghanistan and Pakistan, said Khan.

WATCH: Khan on Britain's positive influence

The minister was referring to his governments decision on Monday to open the border crossings with landlocked Afghanistan, a month after they were closed. Islamabad had justified the move by saying Afghan-based militants mounted deadly attacks on Pakistani soil and Pakistan demanded the neighboring country prevent the terrorist activity.

Pakistani soldiers check the identity of citizens returning from Afghanistan at the border town of Chaman, Pakistan, March 7, 2017.

The border closure fueled bilateral tensions until Britain intervened last week and hosted crucial talks between Afghan National Security Advisor Haneef Atmar and Pakistani foreign policy advisory Sartaj Aziz.

British Home Secretary Rudd reiterated her governments resolve to facilitate such meetings in the future for promoting regional peace.

We remain ready to try and facilitate meetings that will help for a peaceful atmosphere to evolve in London or wherever we can. We are friends to Pakistan so whenever we can we will try to facilitate that sort of environment, she said.

WATCH: Rudd on working toward peaceful environment

Rudd also praised the counterterrorism efforts of Pakistani security forces and said Britain would be ready to work closely with Pakistan to help solidify those gains.

I have been impressed by the way that this country has increased its safety record so significantly over the past two years and I hope will be able to help you build on that with some of our ideas and developments, she said.

The closure of the border had caused tens of millions of dollars in losses for traders in both countries. Afghanistan depends on Pakistani ports for its imports and the border closure stranded thousands of shipping containers after having left Karachi.

Meanwhile, the government of Afghanistan has also acknowledged Islamabad has recently taken a series of steps to promote its promised and sincere cooperation to resolve problems between the two countries.

In a statement issued in Kabul, the foreign ministry, without giving details of Pakistani actions, also reported progress on Afghan complaints that the neighboring country differentiates between good and bad Taliban.

Afghanistan has long maintained that Pakistani security forces are taking action against anti-state militants but spare and protect insurgents using Pakistani soil for orchestrating cross-border attacks.

Here is the original post:
British Mediation Helps Ease Afghanistan's Tensions with Pakistan - Voice of America

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

An immigration judge has ordered an Army veteran from Chicago, who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, to be deported.

On Sunday, his family and his attorney pleaded with the public and elected officials to intervene.

"Miguel is basically an American in every sense of the word," said lawyer Chris Bergin.

Bergin says he'll continue to fight to keep Miguel Perez Jr. on U.S. soil.

Perez moved to Chicago when he was 8-years-old and was a permanent legal resident. He joined the U.S. Army and served two tours of duty in Afghanistan where he suffered a brain injury in an explosion.

Perez's friends and family say that injury, and the post traumatic stress disorder he later developed, made it difficult for him to find workwhen he returned to Chicago. They say he then started selling drugs.

In February of 2010, Perez was convicted of selling more than two-pounds of cocaine.

What Miguel was charged and did a sentence for was a non-violent drug conviction. He never hurt anyone," said Emma Lozano of the Lincoln United Methodist Church.

Perez served seven years, but because he is not a U.S. citizen, Immigration Customs Enforcement detained him, stripped his legal status and began the deportation process. He has been in ICE custody since.

I feel terrible, because my son, right now, is a soldier with no nation no Mexico, no U.S.A., but my son fought for this country not for Mexico now, hes not a national?" said Perez's mother Espranza Perez.

Perez is one of thousands of undocumented immigrant soldiers facing deportation.His lawyer and his family are pleading with U.S. Sens.Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin to introduce a bill that would make Perez a citizen.

Durbin didn't commit to that Sunday, but noted the complexity of the situation.

Its a complicated case, we dont want dangerous people to remain in this country, but we ought to have our eyes wide open," Durbin said. "Heres a man who risked his life for this country, maybe he can pay his price for what hes done wrong here, and still get a chance to stay here."

Perez has two children, both U.S. citizens, an 18-year-old daughter and a 12-year-old son. He's worried he won't be able to see them again if he's deported.

His attorney has filed an appeal to Board of Immigration Appeals, so Perez will remain in the country while the appeals process plays out.

41.878114 -87.629798

Link:
Army Veteran Who Suffered Brain Injury After 2 Tours in Afghanistan to Be Deported - KTLA

BY LINDSEY GRAHAM and JOHN McCAIN

On Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida terrorists murdered 3,000 innocent civilians on American soil while under the sanctuary of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. In response to that attack, U.S. and NATO forces deployed to Afghanistan to hunt down those responsible and ensure that Afghanistan would never again be a haven for terrorists. Since then, more than 2,000 Americans and more than 1,000 troops from our NATO allies have given their lives to that mission.

But after more than a decade-and-a-half of war, Gen. John W. Nicholson, commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month that the war in Afghanistan is in a stalemate. President Donald Trump and his administration must treat Afghanistan with the same urgency as the fight against the Islamic State, or this stalemate risks sliding into strategic failure.

This month, two simultaneous suicide attacks by the Taliban in Kabul killed at least 16 people and wounded more than 40. In northern Afghanistan, the Taliban overran another district. These setbacks came on the heels of disturbing losses across the country. Nicholson recently confirmed an inspector general report that the Afghan government controls or influences just 57 percent of the countrys districts, down from 72 percent just over a year ago.

Make no mistake: Afghans are fighting ferociously to defend their country from our common enemies. At the same time, we must recognize that the United States is still at war in Afghanistan against the terrorist enemies who attacked our nation on Sept. 11 and their ideological heirs. We must act accordingly.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we have tied the hands of our military in Afghanistan. Instead of trying to win, we have settled for just trying not to lose.

Time and time again, we saw troop withdrawals that seemed to have more to do with U.S. politics than conditions on the ground. The fixation with force management levels in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq and Syria, seemed more about measuring troop counts than measuring success.

Authorities were also tightly restricted. Until last summer, our military was prohibited from targeting the Taliban, except in the most extreme circumstances, taking the pressure off the militants and allowing them to rebuild and reattack. Indeed, while we were fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, authorities in Afghanistan were so restrictive that it took an entire year before U.S. forces were finally given authority to strike the groups fighters in Afghanistan.

While we have settled for a dont lose strategy, the risk to U.S. and Afghan forces has only grown worse as the terrorist threat has intensified.

The Taliban has grown more lethal, expanded its territorial control and inflicted heavy casualties on Afghan forces. And it is reportedly doing so with help from Iran and Russia, who want nothing more than to see the United States fail in Afghanistan.

Al-Qaida and the Haqqani network continue to threaten our interests in Afghanistan and beyond.

The Islamic State is trying to carve out another haven from which it can plan and execute attacks.

Moreover, U.S. efforts to confront these terrorist threats are continually frustrated by terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan used to attack across its border and kill U.S. forces. Deteriorating relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan only make this problem more difficult.

Trump has an important opportunity to turn the page, seize the initiative and take the fight to our terrorist enemies. To do this, the United States must align ends, ways and means in Afghanistan.

The U.S. objective in Afghanistan is the same now as it was in 2001: to prevent terrorists from using the countrys territory to attack our homeland.

We seek to achieve this objective by supporting Afghan governance and security institutions as they become capable of standing on their own, defending their country and defeating our common terrorist enemies with less U.S. assistance over time.

Doing this successfully requires the right number of people in the right places with the right authorities and the right capabilities. Our assessment, based on our conversations with commanders on the ground, is that a strategy for success will require additional U.S. and coalition forces and more flexible authorities. It will also require sustained support of the Afghan security forces as they develop key capabilities, especially offensive capabilities such as special operations forces and close air support needed to break the stalemate.

The United States has been at war in Afghanistan for nearly 16 years. Weary as some Americans may be of this long conflict, it is imperative that we see our mission through to success. We have seen what happens when we fail to be vigilant. The threats we face are real. And the stakes are high not just for the lives of the Afghan people and the stability of the region, but for Americas national security.

John McCain, R-Ariz., is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is a member of the committee. This column was first published in The Washington Post.

The rest is here:
Why we need more troops in Afghanistan | Commentary ... - Charleston Post Courier

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Last month, American Gen. John Nicholson, the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said the coalition needs a few thousand more troops to help with training and advising the Afghan troops.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani said on Sunday that additional troops would help Afghanistan combat the serious security threat posed by the activities of terrorist groups in the country, report Pakistani and Turkish news outlets.

Rabbani left for the U.S. Sunday to participate in a Meeting of the Ministers of the Global Coalition to CounterDaesh [Islamic State].

The most potent terror organization in the country remains the Taliban, which continues to wreak havoc more than 15 years after U.S. troops entered the country to defeat them and their ally al-Qaeda.Both groups remain active.

Gen. Nicholson noted late last year that the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is home to the largest concentration of U.S. and United Nations-designated terrorist groups seven in Pakistan and across the border in Afghanistan.

Currently, there are an estimated 13,300 foreign troops in Afghanistan, including about 8,400 Americans.

Despite the ongoing threat posed by the Taliban, U.S. troops reportedly lost their ability to offensively target the terrorist group when former President Barack Obama ended the combat mission in Afghanistan at the end of 2014.

Since then, the American troops have only been able to shoot at the Taliban when they attack first or when the Afghan forces request it.

There was a steady withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan under Obama, who failed to keep his promise to end the war in the country.

Terrorists, mainly the Taliban, have killed at least 2,247 U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the war started in October 2001 and wounded another 20,203.

The majority of casualties during the conflict took place under Obamas watch.

Afghan Foreign Minister Rabbanis comments endorsing the U.S. call for more foreign troops in Afghanistan come a day after the U.N. Security Council extended the intergovernmental organizations mission in Afghanistan for another year.

The U.N. acknowledged the ongoing threat posed by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their alleged mutual rival the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) wing in the country, known as the Khorasan Province (IS-KP/ISIL-K).

Before he left to the U.S. Sunday, the Afghan foreign minister noted that Kabul needs international assistance to push ISIS out of Afghanistan.

The U.S. military has identified the ISIS stronghold in the region as Afghanistans opium-rich Nangarhar province, which borders Pakistan.

Afghanistans neighbor Pakistan is considered a terrorist sanctuary by the U.S. and Afghanistan.

Follow this link:
Kabul Supports US Call for More Foreign Troops in Afghanistan - Breitbart News