Mediaboss Marketing

Is keeping soldiers in Afghanistan for this long a good idea? To answer this question in short, yes it is. The war on terror began all because of the malicious terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. President Bush then declared war and it is still going on until this day. Many have questioned whether or not the United States has any good reason to stay over in Afghanistan any longer. There are three main reasons the Americans should keep a stern force in Iraq. First, is that the American soldiers are training Afghan soldiers and are essentially, rebuilding the country. Second, this nation needs our soldiers there in Iraq to have an answer to Isis. Third and finally, the United States have went through this same problem back in 1945 after World War II. We pulled out our soldiers and within the next seven years they were headed back due to the concern of the Korean war. These three reasons all clearly lay out why the United States troop have to stay in Afghanistan to ensure the safety of America.

Without the American forces in Afghanistan the country would be over run and in pieces. The United States militaries main goal is to build something successful with the Iraqi soldiers but something that will last. Because of the American troops training, the country is better equipped for the threats of Al Qaeda and Isis. Not only are the US forces training other soldiers but they are also doing work throughout Afghanistan in the places that used to be a warzone. The United States have helped rebuild things like schools, hospitals, and bridges. All these are things that they contributed to destroying due to the war. The soldiers continuing presence in Afghanistan not only is training soldiers and rebuilding buildings and bridges but their presence is piecing the country back together. Keeping the forces in Afghanistan another day is another day of them repairing the country.

With a nation as successful and impactful as America there are going to be rival nations attempting to overtake it. One of the more recent risks to the country is the growth of Isis. Isis began in April of two thousand and thirteen in Syria and various parts of Iraq. With a group as malicious as Isis it is imperative that the United States has forces over in Iraq to keep them at bay. The attacks on nine eleven were originated and planned when there wasnt an American presence in Iraq. The goal of U.S troops would be to keep a firm grip on Isis and not allow them to attack America or allow them to take over several spots in Iraq. The United States has to leave their troops in Afghanistan because of terrorist groups such as Isis, always being a threat. Without the American presence Isis would run free wreaking havoc and destroying all the progress the US soldiers have made throughout the years.

The third and final reason the Americans need to leave soldiers in Afghanistan is because we encountered in 1945 with World War II. In May 1945, there was an urgency to bring the troops home. This bringing soldiers home was called, Operation Magic Carpet. They completely pulled the troops out and within the next seven years the U.S troops were back in Germany due to risks of the Korean war. Once the early 1950s came around the United States had about 75,000 troops in Germany. As the years went on, this number grew to around a quarter of a million soldiers. This example is one the American government should note. Our past as exemplified by the war with Germany, without an American presence wars are bound to begin. This historical story from World War II exemplifies another reason why the Americans need to keep their presence in Afghanistan.

America is arguably the most influential nation in the history of the world; Not only financially or politically but in terms of military force. The United States has put forth much effort keeping the war under control. These efforts include keeping the troops over in Afghanistan. The troops have been training soldiers and repairing schools and hospitals that have been destroyed. The soldiers presence is a great answer to the uprising of Isis and the threat they present. Finally, the American people have an example of what not to do as based upon the end of World War II. The best thing the American people can do is recognize that we need the soldiers in Afghanistan to preserve our safety. Instead of arguing and causing conflicts, we as a people should unite behind our government and military; supporting them as they are overseas protecting our freedom.

Josh Daniel is a resident of Troy and a student at Edison State Community College

.

More here:
Soldiers still in Afghanistan for good reason - Piqua Daily Call

Members of Afghanistan's security forces fire rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launchers during an operation against militants in Kot district of Nangarhar province, February 16, 2017. (Photo by AFP)

A mortar attack by Taliban militants has killed five civilians of one family, including four children, in Afghanistan's northern province of Takhar.

Sunatullah Timor, the provincial governor's spokesman, said on Friday that the militants fired mortars at a security post in Khwaja Bahuddin district the previous day. One of the projectiles hit a nearby home, killing all the people inside.

The militants also killed a local security policeman and his wife and mother in the same district, Timor said.

Last year, the United Nations expressed deep concern over the rise in the number of children killed or wounded in Afghanistan.

In a report released on October 26, 2016, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said child casualties saw a marked increase between January and September that year.

The UN report said the mission had documented a total of 639 deaths and 1,822 injuries among kids, adding that child casualties had risen every year since 2013.

Afghan forces have been engaged in fierce clashes with Taliban to contain insurgency in various parts of the country.

Taliban militants were removed from power following the 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan, but they have stepped up activities in recent months, attempting to overrun several provinces.

Thousands of foreign troops are still in Afghanistan, but apparentlymaintaining security remains an issue amid almost frequent incidents of violence across the country.

Read the rest here:
Taliban mortar attack kills five civilians in northern Afghanistan - Press TV

New York Times

Even Bold Foreign Investors Tiptoe in Iran New York Times Boeing and Airbus have reached agreements to sell a combined 180 aircraft to Iran. The French automaker PSA has committed 300 million euros, or $320 million, to make Citrons in the country, and hotel groups like Accor and Rotana have struck tourism ... The Real Winner in the Russia Investigations Is IranPJ Media Research in Iran in the Time of TrumpHuffington Post Iran in the crosshairs as Syrian war winds downAl-Monitor Press TV -Foreign Affairs -Sputnik International all 29 news articles »

Read more here:
Even Bold Foreign Investors Tiptoe in Iran - New York Times

During our time in government, there were few issues on which it was easier to build a bipartisan consensus in Congress than the need to contend with the range of threats posed by Iran. Congress played a critical role in penalizing Iran for supporting terrorism, providing support to U.S. partners in the region threatened by Iran, and establishing the sanctions regime that, combined with tough diplomacy, led to a deal that prevents Iran from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. Momentum is again building in Congress to impose additional sanctions on Iran, including with the introduction last week of the Irans Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017 by Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Robert Menendez. The bill has already garnered more than two-dozen cosponsors. Unfortunately, as currently drafted, this bill would do more harm than good.

Thanks in large part to Congresss support including some difficult votes the United States and our partners were able to address the most immediate and consequential threat posed by Iran. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran has dismantled much of its nuclear infrastructure: removing two-thirds of the centrifuges it had installed (well over 10,000 centrifuges), shipping out 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium, decommissioning a reactor capable of producing plutonium for a bomb, and putting all of its nuclear facilities under strict international monitoring.

Iran has committed in writing that, pursuant to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it will never seek a nuclear weapon and has put all key elements of its program under close surveillance. Most important of all: The deal is working.

By all accounts including those of International Atomic Energy Agency, inspectors we have trained, and our own intelligence community Iran is complying with its commitments. In other words, we were able to eliminate a potential threat to our allies and our nation without firing a shot and the only price we paid was a relaxation of those international sanctions whose very purpose was to enable us to address the nuclear threat at the negotiating table. Non-nuclear sanctions, on matters like ballistic missiles, terrorism, and human rights violations, remain in place. And Iran essentially paid for the nuclear deal with its own money, which the international community had frozen in banks around the world, to increase pressure on Iranian leaders to make a deal. In short, President Donald Trump has inherited an Iran policy that leaves us significantly safer than when his predecessor took office.

This context is important in evaluating the potential upsides and downsides of new legislation to impose additional sanctions on Iran.

Many senators will be tempted to support the Corker-Menendez legislation, which at first glance seems to accomplish a rare feat in Washington these days: bringing together bipartisan support to address a known national-security threat. We share concerns about threats from Iran to the United States and our allies, including the challenges posed by Irans ballistic missile program and support for terrorism. But when it comes to an arrangement as complex as the JCPOA, the details matter, and this legislation, in its current form, includes several significant risks that could undermine the nuclear deal.

First, the bill adds new conditions that must be met before Washington can lift sanctions on certain Iranian parties in the future, including sanctions we are already committed to remove if Tehran continues to comply with the nuclear deal. According to the draft legislation, lifting sanctions on such Iranian entities would require a certification that they had not supported or facilitated ballistic missile or terrorist activity. This provision is unnecessary and could give Iran an excuse to undermine the deal. It is unnecessary because once nuclear-related sanctions are removed years from now, as required by the JCPOA, nothing in the deal prevents the administration in power from immediately using legal authorities already on the books to re-designate any individuals or entities that support terrorism or Irans ballistic missile program. And it is problematic because gratuitously adding new conditions could be read by Iran as unilaterally altering the terms of the deal, casting doubt on our future compliance. This could provide Iran a pretext to take reciprocal action such as adding conditions to the performance of its own commitments. If our Chinese, European, or Russian negotiating partners agree that we are altering the deal, the international consensus necessary to keep pressure on Iran to abide by the deal could erode.

Second, the legislation would, most likely, lead the president to designate Irans Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) as a terrorist group. This is a step that the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations considered, but declined to take because of its limited benefits and significant downside risks. Given that existing non-nuclear U.S. sanctions on Iran remain in place, the IRGC and its leaders are already subject to U.S. sanctions. Adding a global terrorism designation would mostly be a symbolic gesture, with limited practical effect. However, doing so could have considerable political effect inside Iran and potentially elsewhere. In particular, it would ignore years of warnings by our own military that such a designation could strengthen Iranian voices that would like to reignite open hostilities against the United States, potentially increasing the risk to our troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the region that at times operate in close proximity to IRGC-supported groups and complicating the counter-Islamic State campaign. There may come a time when such a step is justified, but it should be taken only after carefully weighing costs and benefits and with a clear policy objective in mind. Doing so through legislatively mandated sanctions with no obvious practical benefit would be an unwise move at this time.

Third, by mandating sanctions on any person or entity that poses a risk of materially contributing to Irans ballistic missile program, the bill introduces a standard that is overly broad and vague. Such a loose definition could potentially be used to impose sanctions in violation of the JCPOA particularly when in the hands of an administration that is overtly hostile to the deal.

Defenders of the bill point to the fact that it grants the Trump administration waiver authority for these problematic provisions. Yet we believe it would be counterproductive for Congress to give bipartisan approval to new, unnecessary sanctions authorities that, if deployed, could result in clear violations of the nuclear deal, potentially hurt our shared commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and expose our troops to unnecessary danger. We continue to support continued designations, under existing authorities, of persons or entities who support terrorism or are involved in Irans ballistic missile program, without putting at risk an international deal that has removed the most significant threat we and our allies faced in the region. But Congress should not take any steps that our international partners might view as violating a deal that, so far, has fulfilled its goals. Rather than containing Iran, such steps would isolate the United States.

Finally, while we believe politics should play no role in critical national security decisions, members of Congress considering new Iran sanctions legislation should have open eyes regarding the Trump administrations attitude toward the nuclear deal and its overall approach toward Iran. Trump promised during his campaign that his number one priority is to dismantle the deal. On February 2, then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn publicly, and vaguely, put Iran on notice, followed the next day by Trump declaring on Twitter that Iran was playing with fire. Trumps team has not since publicly outlined any overall approach to Iran policy, engaged openly with Iranian diplomats, or publicly committed to working with our closest allies in keeping the nuclear deal intact. In this uncertain environment, Congress should be a voice of caution and restraint. Any marginal benefit of this legislation is outweighed by the risk of giving an impulsive president license to take steps that could undermine a deal that is working, isolate the United States, and put U.S. troops at risk.

Photo credit:RICK WILKING/AFP/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

Link:
Dear Senators: Push Back Against Iran, but Not at the Expense of the Nuclear Deal - Foreign Policy (blog)

Carmon said that Iran imports North Korean missiles and renames them to give the impression that they were domestically developed. Every few weeks, Carmonexplained, Iranian media outlets publish baseless stories about the supposed success of their military technology programs. In one notable episode fromJanuary 2013, Irans Space Agency announced that it had sent a monkey into space yet pictures of the monkey before and after the mission did not match up.

Iran does not create any quality military equipment, they only are able to buy from abroad, said Carmon. He addedthat when it comes to threatening US ships, all they are able to come up with is suicide speed boats.

Carmon also pointed out that the Iranians once displayed what they claimed to be domestically built submarines, but when we saw the picture that they put out, we saw that the size would be good for the Baltimore aquarium.Further, in January, Iran conducted a failed ballistic missile test.

Based on all ofthisevidence, Carmon does not think that Iran poses any real challenge to the US or Israel.

If the USor Israel attack Irans nuclear sites and military targets, it will be a done deal, he said.

Look at the figures, Fox News columnist Jonathan Adelman, an international studies professor at the University of Denver,wrotein February. The American GDP of over $18 trillion is more than 40 times the GDP of Iran ($450 billion). Given all this, the fear of Iran getting nuclear weapons still remains real. But even more real is the notion that the biggest power in the world, plus three significant regional powers (Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia), could handle Iran if they would put their minds to it.

Furthermore, Iran has stretched its resources in recent years by spending $6 billion annually in support of President Bashar al-Assads regime in Syria, according toBloomberg News. Iran did getsome financial relief, however, through a $1.7 billion payment from the Obama administration that many believed represented ransom for the release of several American hostages in March 2016. It also received sanctions relief under the nuclear deal with the US and other Western countries.

Dr. Harold Rhode, a distinguished senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute and a former US Defense Department official, told JNS.orgthat while America is strong both militarily and internally, Iran and North Korea appear strong, but are weak and rotten inside.

Rhode pointed out that while Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, its government is systematically destroying the country by ignoring domestic problems such as a water crisis. According toa studypublished in March 2016 by the London-based NGO Small Media, Iran faces an unprecedented crisis of water resources that threatens to render vast swathes of the country near-uninhabitable within the coming decades.

Another domestic challenge is Irans rampantopioiddrug problem. Rhode speculated that Iranian authorities could crack down harder on drugs, but refuse to do so in order to keep the people preoccupied so they dont concern themselves with overthrowing the government.

Do we need to have a massive invasion [of Iran]? No. We must show that this regime cannot do what is necessary to keep themselves in power, Rhode said, articulating what he believes the American andIsraeli approach should be.

MEMRIs Carmon said that there are alternatives to actual physical attacks against Iran, such as electronic warfare. Rhode, too, said that there are many options short of putting troops on the ground,including trying to bring about regime change.

We live in very stable societies [and] we expect changes to come slowly, but that is not how it works in totalitarian societies like Iran, Rhode said.The moment the people see the regime has lost its ability and willingness to keep itself in power, the regime will topple very quickly, as happened to the shah in 1979. The shah was not willing to do what was necessary to put down the rioting.

Iran, Rhodesaid, is potentially a paper tiger, and our job [is] to encourage regime change.

Continue reading here:
Is Iran a Paper Tiger? - Algemeiner