Mediaboss Marketing

Politicians and pundits alike have roundly criticized Donald Trump for stating he will pull our troops out of Syria and cut US forces in Afghanistan by half. James Mattis immediately resigned as secretary of defense, writing in a letter to Trump, you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours.

As the US military kills civilians in Syria and CIA-led Afghan forces continue to commit war crimes, it appears Trump is doing the right thing in pulling out military troops. But the CIA will remain and grow stronger after the US troops leave. [A]s American military forces are set to draw down, the role of the Central Intelligence Agency is only likely to grow in importance, according to The New York Times.

On December 31, The Times described a CIA-sponsored Afghan strike force that operates unconstrained by battlefield rules designed to protect civilians, conducting night raids, torture and killings with near impunity. In the article, journalist Mujib Mashal cites an October 2018 United Nations report that raised concern about consistent, credible accounts of intentional destruction of civilian property, illegal detention and other abuses.

Mashal reports that the abuses by the CIA are actively pushing people toward the Taliban and when few US military troops remain, the [CIA-led] strike forces are increasingly the way that a large number of rural Afghans experience the American presence. Indeed, Mohibullah, whose relative was killed when his home was attacked by a strike force, told The Times he saw no difference between the CIA-sponsored force and the Islamic State if the result was to be attacked with no warning.

Don't miss a beat

Get the latest news and thought-provoking analysis from Truthout.

Last fall, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Fatou Bensouda, asked the courts Pre-Trial Chamber to open a formal investigation into the possible commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by parties to the war in Afghanistan, including US persons.

Bensoudas preliminary examination found a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes of torture and ill-treatment had been committed by US military forces deployed to Afghanistan and in secret detention facilities operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, principally in the 2003-2004 period, although allegedly continuing in some cases until 2014.

Bensouda noted these alleged crimes were not the abuses of a few isolated individuals, but rather part of approved interrogation techniques in an attempt to extract actionable intelligence from detainees. She concluded there was reason to believe that crimes were committed in the furtherance of a policy or policies which would support US objectives in the conflict in Afghanistan.

Like its predecessor, the Trump administration is adamant that US war criminals escape justice. In response to Bensoudas referral, National Security Adviser John Bolton told the right-wing Federalist Society the United States would punish the ICC if it mounts a full investigation of Americans for war crimes committed in Afghanistan.

Trump issued a statement saying that in the event the ICC opens a formal investigation, he might negotiate even more binding, bilateral agreements to prohibit nations from surrendering United States persons to the ICC. Trump threatened to prohibit ICC judges and prosecutors from entering the United States, sanction their funds in the United States financial system, and, prosecute them in the United States criminal system. He would consider taking steps in the United Nations Security Council to constrain the Courts sweeping powers.

But Bensouda will not be bowed. After Boltons speech, she stated that the ICC is an independent and impartial judicial institution based on the principle of complementarity, where the ICC will step in only if the accuseds home country does not. Bensouda added, The ICC, as a court of law, will continue to do its work undeterred, in accordance with those principles and the overarching idea of the rule of law.

Meanwhile, the ICC has received an astounding 1.7 million allegations of war crimes committed in Afghanistan during a three-month period ending in January 2018. Some accusations encompass entire villages.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) is one of the few Congress members who favor pulling US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan. She told MSNBCs Rachel Maddow, I think it is right to get our troops out of Syria and let me add, I think its right to get our troops out of Afghanistan. Warren, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she disagrees with the foreign policy establishment position that US troops should stay forever in Afghanistan.

Robert D. Kaplan, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a bipartisan think tank, wrote in The New York Times that the United States should withdraw from Afghanistan. No other country in the world symbolizes the decline of the American empire as much as Afghanistan, he opined. There is virtually no possibility of a military victory over the Taliban and little chance of leaving behind a self-sustaining democracy facts that Washingtons policy community has mostly been unable to accept It is a vestigial limb of empire, and it is time to let it go. While Kaplan writes, it may soon be time to for the United States to get out of the country altogether, he presumably includes CIA, as well as military, forces in that withdrawal.

Regardless of Trumps motivation in pulling out of Syria, it is the correct decision, says international law scholar Richard Falk. But, he adds, Trump should also end the air strikes and use the money saved by terminating military operations to help Syria recover from the humanitarian disaster wrought by seven years of war.

Falk slammed Mattis geopolitical hubris for writing in his resignation letter that the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world. Falk wrote, Really. Such an opinion is not widely shared in most parts of the world. Many people and foreign leaders now worry far more about what the United States does than they do about China and Russia.

The near-universal condemnation by Democrats and Republicans alike of Trumps announcement that he will withdraw US forces from Syria says less about Trump than it does about the US foreign policy establishments blinkered vision, Columbia Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs wrote at Project Syndicate. Sachs disputes the notion that the United States has been in Syria (or Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, the Horn of Africa, Libya, and elsewhere in the region) because of ISIS. Sachs sees ISIS as more a consequence than a cause of the US presence.

Sachs disabuses us of the notion that the United States from Obama to Trump has sought to overthrow Syrian president Bashar al-Assad for the purpose of bringing democracy to Syria, citing US support for the undemocratic Saudi Arabia. The real purposes, Sachs astutely notes, have been US regional hegemony; and the real consequences have been disastrous.

In a statement following Trumps announcement, Veterans for Peace (VFP) lauded the goal of a total removal of US troops from Syria, hoping it would lead to the complete withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan and the Saudi-led war in Yemen as well. It is high time to unwind all these tragic, failed and unnecessary wars of aggression, domination and plunder, VFP stated. It is time to turn a page in history and build a new world based on human rights, equality and mutual respect for all. We must build momentum toward real and lasting peace. Nothing less than the survival of human civilization is at stake.

Indeed, the United States should withdraw all of its forces, including the CIA, from Afghanistan. All US troops should be removed from Syria and all bombing must end. And the US government should make reparations for the devastation it has wreaked in both of those countries.

Psssttt! While youre here we need your help.

Since Donald Trump took office, progressive journalism has been under constant attack and companies like Facebook and Google have changed their policies to limit your access to sites like Truthout.

The result is that our articles are reaching fewer people at a time when we need genuinely independent news more than ever.

Heres how you can help: Since Truthout doesnt run ads or take corporate or government money, we rely on our readers for support.

By making a monthly or one-time donation of any amount, youll help us publish and distribute stories that have a real impact on peoples lives.

Continued here:
Notorious CIA-Backed Units Will Remain in Afghanistan

To the Editor:

In Time to Get Out of Afghanistan (Op-Ed, Jan. 2), Robert D. Kaplan refers to the diplomatic expertise of Richard Holbrooke. Mr. Holbrooke famously remarked, after becoming familiar with Afghan affairs, We may be fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong country. He recognized that Pakistan was the true enemy.

It was Pakistan that helped create the Taliban in the early 1990s and has supported them ever since. In order to bring peace to Afghanistan, the influence of Pakistan must be terminated. This is particularly urgent because of Pakistans position as a leading nuclear power. In 2009 the American ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W. Patterson, noted that enriched uranium being produced in Pakistan might be acquired by terrorists to produce their own bomb. Ten years later, that danger still exists.

Pakistan must be confronted to prevent the Afghan-Pakistan region from becoming a haven for nuclear-armed terrorists.

Edward A. FriedmanHoboken, N.J.The writer teaches courses on nuclear weapons and energy at Stevens Institute of Technology. He represented Stevens in an international development program in Afghanistan from 1965 to 1967 and 1970 to 1973.

To the Editor:

Robert D. Kaplan contradicts himself by describing the horrific situation in Afghanistan as the triumph of deterministic forces, and then almost immediately says, It did not have to be like this. Well, which is it: Is the fault in our stars or in ourselves?

During the Cold War, foreign policy realists lauded Americas morally indefensible alliances with regimes in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that fostered Islamic extremism at home and exported it abroad as a necessity in the struggle with Communism, especially during the Soviet-Afghan War.

When this strategically reckless policy resulted in a tragic reversal for our nation on 9/11, not only the realists but writers of all stripes refused to face the fact that this catastrophe had a long, tragic prelude. Among the worst results of this denial was the resumption of American military aid to Pakistan, which it used to continue backing the Taliban and defeat our war aims.

What we owe to the Afghan people and ourselves is a brave recognition of our own role as protagonists in this drama and a sea change in our policies, not least because walking away from clear and present danger will not make it go away.

Vanni CappelliPoughkeepsie, N.Y.The writer is president of the Afghanistan Foreign Press Association.

To the Editor:

Bravo to Robert D. Kaplan for his opinion regarding our military presence in Afghanistan: Indeed, it may soon be time for the United States to get out of the country altogether. Having been a Marine officer in the Vietnam era, I was pleased when President Richard M. Nixon began pulling troops out of Vietnam. We had been there for a number of years, and it was clear there was no light at the end of the tunnel. We now face a similar dilemma in Afghanistan.

A close friend of mine was killed in Vietnam on Feb. 22, 1969. What a shame our leaders did not respond to the futility of that war earlier and spare the lives of thousands of troops. Lets hope that President Trump will keep us out of stupid wars.

As Mr. Kaplan points out, even if a terrorist group finds refuge in Afghanistan and plans a 9/11-scale attack, Yemen, Somalia and a number of other places could also provide the setting for that. Dont lose lives just to save embarrassment.

David NelsonHouston

To the Editor:

Time to get out of Afghanistan? Past time. There are places where we shouldnt interfere, shouldnt try to impose our values, shouldnt think that we can succeed where others have failed, and Afghanistan is one of them.

Sandra SizerBoston

Go here to see the original:
Opinion | Should the U.S. Leave Afghanistan?

It was not clear why the shaft collapsed, say officials. (Representational)

At least 30 people were killed when a gold mine collapsed in northeastern Afghanistan on Sunday, officials said, in the latest tragedy to strike the war-torn country.

Another seven were injured in the incident in Kohistan district of Badakhshan province, district governor Mohammad Rustam Raghi told AFP.

Villagers had dug a 60-metre deep shaft in a river bed to search for gold. They were inside when the walls fell in. "The people were using an excavator to dig a big hole in the river when it collapsed, trapping dozens of workers," Raghi said.

"At least 30 people have been killed and seven wounded."

It was not clear why the shaft collapsed, but the provincial governor's spokesman Nik Mohammad Nazari told AFP the miners were not professionals.

"The villagers have been involved in this business for decades with no government control over them," Nazari said.

"We have sent a rescue team to the area, but villagers have already started removing bodies from the site."

Badakhshan is a remote, mountainous province in northeast Afghanistan bordering Tajikistan, China and Pakistan.

The impoverished region is prone to landslides, particularly in the colder months when heavy snow blankets the province.

Illegal mining is common in resource-rich Afghanistan, with the Taliban relying on the sector for much of its revenue.

But most of the country's minerals remain untapped as the raging conflict and lack of regulation deter international miners from exploiting the huge reserves.

Read this article:
At Least 30 Killed After Gold Mine Collapses In Afghanistan ...

The Afghan government has tried to regulate the mining sector by offering new contracts in an effort to improve oversight, but even those deals have been marred by charges of corruption and irregularity.

Last year, the government in Kabul signed two contracts for exploration of copper and gold in the north. But watchdog groups criticized the agreements, saying they may violate conflict-of-interest laws and allow questionable practices that have marred the mining sector for years to continue.

Part of the river in Badakhshan where the deadly episode occurred is controlled by the Taliban, who get a cut from the gold panned there, said Mr. Talat, the provincial council member.

Separately, in the south of the country, the Taliban seem to have increased their attacks in recent weeks, officials said, and the official toll from an assault on Friday in Kandahar Province more than doubled by Sunday.

After the Taliban attacked a border police outpost in the district of Spinboldak on Friday, the local government put the number of soldiers killed at seven. But on Sunday, Nimatullah Wafa, a member of provincial council, confirmed reports attributed to local officials that 16 soldiers had died.

It was the latest in a series of attacks on police checkpoints in Spinboldak, which borders Pakistan. The district was also home to the former powerful police chief of Kandahar, Gen. Abdul Raziq, who was assassinated in a daring Taliban attack in October, barely missing Gen. Austin S. Miller, the top American commander in Afghanistan.

Officials have expressed fear that the Taliban will make a stronger push for Kandahar Province. Mr. Wafa, the provincial council member, said the insurgents had gained more influence in districts along the border with Pakistan and had launched more frequent attacks in areas that were once peaceful.

The security situation in some Kandahar districts is getting worse, Mr. Wafa said. They have more courage to attack a peaceful district like Spinboldak that rarely happened when General Raziq was alive.

Read more:
Afghan Villagers Panning for Gold Die as Tunnels Collapse ...

By Durdana Najam

In his usual style, Donald Trump, mocking Modis desire to build libraries in Afghanistan, asked the regional stakeholders to play a more active role in resolving the Afghan crisis. He said that countries close to Afghanistan, and not the one 6,000 kilometres away (the US), should be helping the war-torn country in its rehabilitation.

Trumps jibe at Modi, for his desire to build libraries in Afghanistan, perhaps stems from the presidents continuous allegation on the allies for draining US treasury on fighting lost wars, of which the Afghan war takes the cake because of being the longest and the costliest in history. This jibe might also have stemmed from the US desire to see the wisdom of books played out on ground in the form of a shareholding solution to the Afghan crisis, with India accepting each partner wholeheartedly. Overall, the mood in Washington is that of allowing Afghanistan to move in the direction proposed by its stakeholders, rather than to what the US deems fit.

A few days back, in a sudden foreign policy shift, Trump announced on December 20, 2018, to withdraw 7,000 troops from Afghanistan. The decision was preceded by a series of meetings held between the US officials and the Taliban. This sudden departure, from being the sole scriptwriter of the Afghan conflict to allowing other actors both at home and in the region to find solution to the conflict, has staggered India.

Not that India does not want peace in Afghanistan, in fact, India has invested heavily in economic and development projects in the war-torn country. What irritates India is the prospect of Taliban taking the centre stage in a new set-up. India worries that the return of the hardliners could also mean a return of post-Soviet Union Afghanistan, when the county was allegedly used to plan insurgency in Kashmir. Indias another fear emanates from Pakistan regaining a strong position in Afghanistan.

Indias fear of Taliban is based on the received wisdom that the group has not changed over the past two decades. It also feeds on Indias refusal to accept its mishandling of the Kashmir issue. At a time when Russia and China have accepted the Taliban, despite apprehensions about their Islamist demeanour, India is stuck with viewing Taliban only as an enemy.

Indian right wings obsession with preserving the so-called holiness of the cow, which is in turn spreading hatred for people eating beef has earned the country a bad name both at home and abroad. The former Chairman of Press Council of India and retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Markandey Katju voiced a similar view in a TV interview. He reprimanded Modis government for making India a laughing stock world over for allowing killing of Muslims on eating beef.

Moreover, the recent banning of Namaz in open by the Yogi government in UP, said Katju, was unconstitutional. He said that Article 19 of the Constitution of India gave full rights to any community for a peaceful gathering. To support his argument, he mentioned the daily gathering called Shahkhaas of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sanghs stalwarts held in parks for an hour at anytime of the day. These gatherings, according to Katju, were never stopped.

Indias fear of the Kashmir insurgency getting worse in future because of the Taliban backed freedom fighters is deceptive, to say the least. Indias self-destructive Kashmir policy is enough to breed freedom fighters. Taliban or Pakistan, as the allegation goes, does not have to export them. Each Kashmiri is resisting Indias brutal campaign to hunt down freedom fighters.

In the first week of December 2018, seven civilians lost their lives, when they intervened between freedom fighters and advancing officers. Sheikh Showkat Husain, an international law professor, while talking to the New York Times, has called it a new phenomenon. He said Civilians have always supported militants, but never with such conviction. According to human rights groups, around 148 civilians were killed in 2018 alone, with most of them being teenagers.

Instead of taking a cue to improve its way of handling the Kashmir conflict, India has hardened its position. The Indian Chief of Army Staff, Bipin Rawat, was found saying that all those people obstructing our operation would be treated as over-ground workers, or collaborators.

According to the Kashmiri police, of the 250 known freedom fighters, only 50 or so are from Pakistan. The rest, they said, neither had ever left Kashmir nor trained for insurgency. Even the abnormal ratio of 1,000 army officer to one insurgent has not dissuaded the Kashmiris from joining what is now being called an indigenous fight to free Kashmir of Indian atrocities.

Rather than fearing the Taliban or Pakistans growing role in Afghanistan, India should fear its polices in Kashmir. The world has changed manifold since the Soviet Union left Afghanistan. Its time for India to seek an antidote for its fear in the implementation of real secularism in Kashmir and the rest of India.

In the emerging scenario, following the US involvement in Afghanistan receding considerably, India or any other country, including Pakistan, should only play a facilitative role in building peace in Afghanistan. The country has a long history of breaking apart under the weight of its tribal and ethnic skirmishes. With each ethnic group having relations to the bordering countries, be it Tajik or Uzbek or Pashtuns or Hazaras, it has been easy to loop in those ethnic groups in the conflict. This geographic reality cannot be ignored and could revive in todays milieu of popular politics. The solution lies in regional countries abandoning any policies that might foment ethnic sentiments and should therefore play a role towards rebuilding Afghanistan.

The writer is a freelance journalist based in Lahore (durdananajam1@gmail.com)

Like Loading...

Related

See the article here:
The Indian fear of Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan