Mediaboss Marketing

Washington - Hanging in a corridor outside the Pentagon press office, a blow-up of a Time magazine cover shows a weary US soldier drawing deeply on his cigarette. Barbed wire and snowy foothills loom behind him.

The headline: "How Not to Lose in Afghanistan." The date: April 20 2009.

More than eight years later, the Pentagon finds itself in the same quandary.

Again.

This time round, it is President Donald Trump looking for answers, just as Barack Obama and George W Bush did before him.

Having given Afghanistan little more than a passing mention as President, he is now being forced to confront the issue by a grim drumbeat of bad news and warnings from his generals.

Almost any year from its turbulent recent past can serve as a showcase for Afghanistan's dire predicament.

Take 2016, which marked 15 years since the US-led invasion. Nearly 11 500 Afghan civilians were killed or wounded, according to the United Nations.

Adding to the carnage, local officials say, the Taliban and other insurgent groups killed about 7 000 Afghan security force members - many of whom had been trained and supported by US and Nato experts.

Dan Coats, Trump's director of national intelligence, hammered home the depressing point last week, warning that the political and security situation will "almost certainly" continue to worsen.

"Meanwhile, we assess that the Taliban is likely to continue to make gains, especially in rural areas," he said.

Trump, who campaigned on an "America First" platform and a pledge to reduce US overseas involvement, must now decide whether to approve expected requests from the military's top brass to send thousands more US troops back to Afghanistan.

Administration advisers are reportedly urging him to approve about 3 000 to 5 000 additional troops, adding to the 8 400 already there.

The president is expected to make the decision this month, and Pentagon chief Jim Mattis said his own recommendation would come "very shortly".

'Change something'

US troop levels peaked at around 100 000 under Obama, who later embarked on a steady drawdown aiming to completely end America's combat role in the country.

The United States and Nato handed security responsibility over to Afghan forces at the start of 2015, but the outcome has been brutal.

Local troops have been slain in their thousands, corruption remains endemic and as the Taliban continues to gain ground, even US commanders concede the situation is a stalemate at best.

"Unless we change something... the situation will continue to deteriorate and we'll lose all the gains that we've invested in over the last several years," Defence Intelligence Agency chief General Vincent Stewart told lawmakers.

However, a new troop commitment would stir resentment in America, which has seen about 2 400 troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001 and another 20 000 wounded.

Plus the US government has already spent around $1 trillion on fighting and rebuilding, much of which has been squandered on wasteful projects.

Trump is expected to announce a decision while he travels to Nato in Brussels and a G7 summit in Sicily later this month.

He will need to outline a coherent Afghanistan policy and explain how a few thousand extra troops will win - or at least not lose - there, when 100 000 troops could not.

"What we will have at the end of this next few weeks here is an opportunity for a much more effective strategy for the problem set in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the region broadly," said Trump's national security adviser, HR McMaster.

Administration officials acknowledge military gains can succeed only if reforms take place in the heart of the Kabul government.

Mattis this week sounded an optimistic tone on the country's current leaders, President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah.

Officials say the government is working to root out the corruption and bad governance that defined Hamid Karzai's decade in power.

They are "committed to working in a responsive way with their citizens, and therein lies the path forward", Mattis said.

"When a government wins the affection, the respect and the support of their people, then no enemy can stand against them."

Nato currently has about 13 500 soldiers in Afghanistan, including the Americans.

They do not typically fight the Taliban, serving a "train and advise" role for the local forces instead.

Extra troops could free up Western advisers to get closer to the fight. While that would help them gain better battlefield understanding, it would also put them at greater risk.

But Americans have little appetite for more deaths in a war that many view as unwinnable and would rather forget.

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

More:
US weighs more troops for Afghanistan - News24

Former soldier Bruce Hodges has been without his assistance dog for more than a month. (Facebook)

A former soldier has been without his assistance dog for more than a month after it was stolen from the backyard of his home in Moreton Bay.

Police said the blue American Staffordshire puppy, named Major, was taken from Bruce Hodges Dakabin property on April 5.

"Major" was stolen on April 5. (Facebook)

Mr Hodges is an Afghanistan veteran and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. He had been visiting his son in hospital at the time of the theft.

They injured my adult American Staffordshire and jumped the fence with my assistance dog, he wrote.

Mr Hodges is an Afghanistan veteran. (Facebook)

Major is my best mate, my dog, my friend.

Investigations are ongoing.

Anyone with information is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

Nine Digital Pty Ltd 2017

Career news: Nine types of managers and how to manage them- seek.com.au

Auto news:GM could sell Opel to Peugeot parent - caradvice.com.au

Auto news:Autonomous cars wont kill people, but they will take our jobs - caradvice.com.au

Auto news: What does the new American president mean for the auto industry? - caradvice.com.au

Auto news:A new Hyundai ute is now on the cards - caradvice.com.au

Auto news: Buying a new car? Here are 11 things you should consider first - caradvice.com.au

More here:
Afghanistan war veteran's assistance dog stolen from Moreton Bay backyard - 9news.com.au

Sen. Mike LeeMike LeeSunday shows preview: Comey fallout continues as replacement interviews kick off GOP senator presses Trump on Afghanistan policy The Antiquities Act has been hijacked - reform it now to prevent a national monument spree MORE (R-Utah) is seeking answers from the White House on a proposal to shift the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan as President Trump weighs a decision to send thousands more troops into the conflict.

"From 2006 to 2014 the United States had over 20,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan at any given time, with 100,000 military personnel in the country between 2010 and 2011," Lee wrote in a Fridayletterto Trump.

"However, these levels of military activity did not yield the long-term stability or security gains that were desired," he continued.

"How would an increase in the level of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and new strategy achieve a different outcome at this time?"

Lee's questions come as the U.S. is facing mounting challenges in Afghanistan, most notably a resurgent Taliban.

Senior military officials have called the current fight a "stalemate" and have requested 3,000-5,000 additional troops.

Currently, there are about 8,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan engaged in training, advising and assisting Afghan security forces, as well as conducting counterterrorism operations against militant groups including the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria's (ISIS) Afghan affiliate.

Lee has been an advocate of accelerating the drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, signing onto a letter in 2011 which called on then-President Barack ObamaBarack ObamaWhy are we cutting office crucial to fighting opioid crisis? Kamala Harris tells grads to speak out against Trump-era injustice Budget cuts present a unique opportunity for US NGOs and the private sector MORE to speed up country's withdrawal from the conflict.

Trump rarely addressed the U.S.'s involvement in Afghanistan on the campaign trail. But the idea of increasing troop levels there contradicts his "America first" pledge to avoid sustained military intervention.

Read more here:
GOP senator presses Trump on Afghanistan policy - The Hill

China is extending its Belt and Road Initiative to include Afghanistan.

The development plan refers to the historic Silk Road between China and the West. It aims to link more than 60 countries from Asia to Europe, through land and maritime trade routes.

Chinese President Xi Jinping introduced the plan in 2013.

The extension plan would involve extending the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, known as CPEC, to neighboring Afghanistan. The CPEC is a program within the larger Belt and Road Initiative.

China is now preparing for the first Belt and Road Forum, a meeting of countries involved in the development project. The two-day event begins Sunday in Beijing. More than 25 heads of state will attend the meeting.

The Unites States also is sending a delegation to the meeting. It will be led by Matthew Pottinger, an adviser to President Donald Trump and a National Security Council official for East Asia.

China welcomed the move, which was first planned when Trump met with Xi last month in Florida.

China expanding its Belt and Road project

The decision to include Afghanistan has caused some observers to question whether China is trying to expand its influence in this area of Asia.

Ahmad Bilal Khalil is a researcher with the Center for Strategic and Regional Studies in Kabul, Afghanistan. He recently spoke with VOA about Chinas development plans.

He said that the aim is to create a road linking Pakistans Peshawar to the Afghan capital of Kabul and to Kunduz, and then deeper into Central Asia.

Khalil said having projects in Afghanistan will help China with its $50 billion project in Pakistan. He says the effort will bring more Pakistani and Chinese economic interests into Afghanistan.

"If there is insecurity in Afghanistan, (it) can also affect CPEC and One Belt, One Road, Khalil said. One Belt, One Road is another name for the Belt and Road Initiative.

David Kelly is with China Policy, a consulting company based in Beijing. He said that China hopes its investments in Afghanistan will reduce tensions there.

However, he said that reducing the religious and ethnic conflict in the country has been, in his words, something that the Americans and before them the Soviets were unable to do.

China has invested in the copper mines of Afghanistan. It wants to improve access to the countrys mineral resources.

M.K. Bhadrakumar is an author and an Indian diplomat. He said that extending the Belt and Road project to Afghanistan will help China in those efforts.

"One trillion dollars worth of mineral resources are available in Afghanistan, he said.

Some observers note that China also may aim to be involved in Afghanistans building industry in the future.

But Chinas main goal, some experts say, is to improve regional security through development and economic cooperation.

That is a difficult task. Recent clashes on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan killed more than 50 people in two days.

Ahmad Bilal Khalil said, There is also a huge possibility that terrorism and extremism will also be exported to central Asia.

Researchers at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute noted in a recent report that the Belt initiative can do little to improve relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But, they wrote, there may be prospects for this over the medium to long term.

David Kelly with China Policy said China believes it can reduce religious extremism through offering economic benefits.

However, this policy has been proven wrong in the past, he said.

Saibal Dasgupta reported this story for VOA News. Ashley Thompson adapted it for Learning English. Mario Ritter was the editor.

____________________________________________________________

maritime adj. having to do with sea travel

route n. a way to get from one place to another

regional adj. having to do with a large area within a country or including several countries

prospect n. the possibility that something will happen

Excerpt from:
China to Extend 'Silk Road' Plan to Afghanistan - Voice of America

KABUL The emerging signs that the Trump administration may send thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan are generating a variety of reactions here, including relief at a signal of strong commitment from the new administration in Washington, and worry that it may not be enough to turn around a long, expensive war that the Taliban has fought to a draw.

But many Afghan observers agree on one thing: Without a complementary political policy aimed at bolstering the weak Kabul government, pressing fractious leaders to get along and fending off the countrys meddlesome neighbors, no U.S. military surge alone can solve the broader problems that have made peace and stability so elusive.

There is more fighting and more ground held by Taliban now than ever before, and increasing the troops can help reverse that, said Abdul Bari Barakzai, a member of the governments High Peace Council. But people have lost their trust in the government. No matter how many troops you bring now, it will have no lasting impact unless there is real reform and good governance.

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

Earlier this week, after a lengthy review, top Trump administration advisers were reported to be urging an ambitious new military role in Afghanistan, led by the Pentagon, with at least 3,000 troops added to the current 8,400, to halt the countrys deteriorating security and push the Taliban back to the negotiating table. President Trump is expected to make a final decision this month.

Such a policy would dramatically ramp up American involvement in the war, which was systematically cut back under President Barack Obama. By the end of 2014, most U.S. and NATO forces had left the country, leaving Afghan troops struggling to hold off a determined Taliban insurgency, at a loss of life that a U.S. watchdog group recently called shockingly high.

Today, Afghan officials and experts agree that the defense forces are desperately in need of both short- and long-term U.S. assistance more equipment, air support and Special Operations partnerships as the summer fighting season intensifies, and more troop training and leadership reforms so that the defense forces can become self-sufficient.

Our biggest challenge is the Taliban. We need help to keep up the pressure and force them to negotiate, said Sediq Siddiqi, a spokesman for the government of President Ashraf Ghani. Were not waiting for the U.S. to go in and take over, but we need help with the transition, he said. We need the Taliban to feel the pressure, and we cant do it alone.

No one in Afghanistan, though, sees the insurgents as operating in a vacuum. Rather, the insurgents are viewed as capitalizing on widespread perceptions that the state is weak, corrupt, consumed with internal and external rivalries, and unable to deliver services, jobs, reforms and modernization.

A wide variety of Afghans, asked this week whether the United States should step up its military presence, almost immediately raised the issues of poor government performance and political quarreling as significant deterrents to peace. One civic activist described the government as being in a state of continuous crisis.

Some said it was more important for foreign allies and donors, especially the United States, to help resolve these problems than to immerse themselves again in a bloody civil conflict. And many said that it was equally crucial for the United States to press next-door Pakistan to stop harboring anti-Afghan insurgents, a charge Pakistan has denied.

[After decades as fugitive, Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar returns with appeal for peace]

A U.S. troop increase can be effective, but you need to put maximum pressure on Pakistan to stop training and sheltering terrorists, said Gen. Mirza Mohammed Yarmand, a former deputy interior minister. The challenge of leaders bickering in the government is far more serious, he added. Without sorting out these two issues, there will be no peace in Afghanistan, whatever amount of money you spend here and whatever number of troops you send.

The Trump administration has said little about Afghanistans government problems and has not yet announced any policy decisions on Pakistan, although it has hinted at using both economic and diplomatic sanctions against its former Cold War ally if the Islamabad government does not do more to rein in violent Islamist groups.

Afghans are also worried about the designs of other aggressive neighbors and regional powers, especially Iran and Russia, on their economically weakened and war-torn country. Several said a U.S. decision to send more troops would also send an important hands-off message to those powers.

We know Pakistan, Iran and the Russians do not want to see peace in Afghanistan, but decisive action by President Trump will plant a seed of hope in people, said Ismael Hashimi, director of the private Citizens Foundation here. If he sends more troops, people will feel they have a strong partner on their side.

With no U.S. ambassador in Kabul since December, U.S. military officials, especially Gen. John W. Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and H.R. McMaster, a former military adviser in Kabul who is now Trumps national security adviser, have played especially high-profile roles, and both have urged more military involvement.

But Davood Moradian, director of the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies, said the U.S. administration needs to develop complementary military and political policies, especially with the Afghan government embroiled in ethnic disputes and losing public support, while the Taliban is already using the international military presence as an excuse to continue fighting the state.

President Obama overly idealized political and diplomatic solutions. The danger now is that President Trump will see everything as a military problem with a military solution, he said. The challenge is to combine them both, and be smart about it.

Sayed Salahuddin and Sharif Walid contributed to this report.

Read more:

It was a brutal killing that shocked Afghanistan. Now, the outrage has faded.

U.S. defense chief arrives in Kabul as his Afghan counterpart resigns in disgrace

At least 140 dead after Taliban attack on a key Afghan army base, officials say

Todays coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Link:
More US soldiers may be heading to Afghanistan. That might not solve the problem. - Washington Post