March – 2017 – Mediaboss Marketing

Archive for March, 2017

Army Veteran Who Suffered Brain Injury After 2 Tours in Afghanistan to Be Deported – KTLA

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

March 21st, 2017

Comments off

Why we need more troops in Afghanistan | Commentary … – Charleston Post Courier

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

March 21st, 2017

Comments off

Kabul Supports US Call for More Foreign Troops in Afghanistan – Breitbart News

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.

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

March 21st, 2017

Comments off

On Iran, President Trump is sending mixed signals – The Hill (blog)

Two months into the Trump presidency, uncertainty and confusion about U.S. foreign policy in general, and its policy in the Middle East in particular, continue to puzzle experts and decision makers around the globe. Regarding Iran, the administration has been sending mixed signals, making it difficult to understand its intended policy.

On the one hand, the new administration has continued the tough anti-Iran rhetoric that Trump adopted during his election campaign.

On Feb. 1, after Iran tested several ballistic missiles, then-national security adviser Michael Flynn put Iran on notice for its provocative missile test and for its arming and training of the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Two days later, Washington imposed sanctions on 25 individuals and entities involved in Irans ballistic missile program.

Then, Flynn released a new statement and threatened that the international community has been too tolerant of Irans bad behavior. The Trump administration will no longer tolerate Irans provocations that threaten our interests. The days of turning a blind eye to Irans hostile and belligerent actions toward the United States and the world community are over.

On the other hand, the Trump administration has sent some signals that could be interpreted as the continuation of President Obamas conciliatory approach toward Iran.

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly called the nuclear deal with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a catastrophic deal, and in his speech to the AIPAC conference in March 2016 he declared, my number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. However, according to numerous reports, Senior U.S. officials have given assurances to the European Union that the Trump administration is committed to the Iranian nuclear deal.

The administration has also confirmed that it would continue to grant licenses to companies such as Boeing so that they can pursue multi-billion dollar deals with Iran. In addition, according to Iranian press, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has allowed American citizens to open accounts in Iranian banks: According to the latest ruling of OFAC, American citizens, who live in Iran and need a bank account, are allowed to open one in Iranian banks. Irans leading economic website, Donyaye-e Eghtesad, has interpreted these two developments as Trumps positive signals after his commitment to the nuclear deal.

These actions are viewed by Tehran as conciliatory gestures showing Trumps desire to prime business deals over a costly confrontation with Iran. During a roundtable in Tehran that included Irans deputy foreign minister, Nasser Hadian, a top adviser to the Foreign Ministry asked the government to make the necessary preparations and economic opportunities to attract Trump, as he is a pragmatist with no real partisan standing who only cares about economic interests.

Regarding the proposal to designate Irans Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, the White House seems hesitant. An administration official told Reuters that sanctioning IRGC could backfire, strengthen the hardliners and undercut more moderate leaders such as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and encourage Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria to curtail any action against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and perhaps even sponsor actions against U.S.-backed or even American forces battling Islamic State in Iraq.

The Trump administrations confusing signals toward Tehran have caused concern among policy experts in Washington. As Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote in the Weekly Standard, there is a contradiction between Trumps desire for business and the need to confront Irans malign activities. Does the president see ideological forcesIran's version of Islamismas a sufficient threat to override his obvious desire to see American trade expand? Given the central role of commerce in the president's worldview and the strong tendency of businessmen to see other businessmen non-ideologically, it's possible Trump could incline towards the conventional view: better to support Rouhani the Moderate against the hardliners.

The contradictions in Trumps policies are clearer in his approach to Syria; Ambassador Dennis Ross has underlined that the Trump administration cannot say it is going to be tougher on Iran and at the same time join with the Russians in Syria. The two are mutually exclusive.

Similarly, Gerald Feierstein, former U.S. ambassador to Yemen, told the International Business Times that Trump would like to minimize his engagement in the Middle East, except for the fight against ISIL and other violent extremist groups. If that were the case, it would strengthen Iran's hand in pursuing its efforts at regional hegemony, particularly if the fight against violent extremism includes enhanced cooperation with Russia, the Syrian regime and, by extension, Iran.

These policies could induce the Trump administration to pursue Obamas failed policies. Marc Gerecht has raised the alarm about such a slippery slope: A certain momentum will develop if Trump decides to keep the nuclear deal and allow the plane contracts. If Trump becomes committed to this accord, it will take on a life of its own. If Trump decides to accept the nuclear deal and basically ignore the clerical regime's search for dominion in the Middle East, he will take the United States to where Obama was headedjust more quickly.

Iran certainly represents a key policy dilemma for the United States, both in terms of its influence in the region as well as its nuclear program. To date, Trumps actions toward Tehran have not matched his rhetoric, leaving many to wonder what changes if any changes we can expect with regards to this issue.

Hassan Dai is a human rights activist, political analyst and editor of the Iranian American Forum. @IranianForum

The views of contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Go here to read the rest:
On Iran, President Trump is sending mixed signals - The Hill (blog)

March 21st, 2017

Comments off