Mediaboss Marketing

KABUL, Afghanistan Weaving through theclogged streets of Kabul, only half are paved. The rest are tracksin the hardened dirt. Unfinished buildings tower over the endless raw meat stands, barefoot men huddle in a gutter sharing tea while poorwomen beg from behind theirburkas andchildren swarm car windows pleading for spare change.

There is an unspoken sense that anything, at any time, can go wrong.

"There is no safe place to go anymore. When a person comes out of their house, you cannot assume that he or she will come home," MohammadSayedRahimi, founder of private security firm Kabul Balkh Safety&Security, told Fox News. "The situation now is as fearful as it was under the Taliban rule of the '90s."

TheSpecial Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reportedlastweek that armed clashes and security incidents nationwide have reached "new heights" and caused an uptick in civilian deaths. The security incidents throughout last year and the first quarter of this year are also at their highest level sinceUnited Nations documentation began in 2007.

President Trump is considering a proposed Pentagon plan for the embattled country, which -- if implemented -- is likely to entail the deployment of at least 3,000 more American military personnel.

"More U.S.troops would be much better for the security of the country, but the U.S.needs to have a clear, long-term strategy toward Afghanistan," saidGen.JawidKohistani, a former official at Afghanistan's National DirectorateofSecurity (NDS) and leading security analyst."So far, it has all been temporary. And that isn't working."

Essa Attei (Hollie McKay/Fox News)

The quick U.S. ousting of theradical Islamic fundamentalistTaliban regimein 2001 and the ensuing almost 16-year peace in their country doesn't go unappreciated by most Afghans,who view America and NATO asloyal partnersin their fight against terrorism.

"We welcome more troops; NATO has been our best friend," said EssaAttei, a driver for the late PresidentBurhanuddin Rabbani, who reigned from 1992 to 1996before the Taliban took over.

AbdulKhaliqKandahari, the former governor of the Arghandab district of Kandahar province and current adviser to Dr. AbdullahAbdullah-- the chief executive of Afghanistan -- survived an assassination attempt in 2014, eight bulletstearing intohis stomach. He credits the U.S.for saving his life with emergency surgery atBagramAir Base.

"The U.S.has supported us since we fought against the Soviet invaders, and after 2001,and we are very grateful," he enthused. "Without American support, we cannot yet stand on our own legs. This takes time. Security and infrastructure is most important."

The decades of conflict, invasion and extremist rule led the Afghanpeople to live defensively, but they do not accept constant conflict as normal -- knowing all too well that a better life is not impossible.

"We are at war," Col. Abdul Sami, who works in Kabul securing depots and storage facilities for the Ministry of Defense, said."We don'thaveany problems in this country -- but this."

Women at an outdoor market in Kabul (Hollie McKay/Fox News)

For some, a continued or even expanded American presence could prove either friendly or fatal for their country. Today's deterioratingsecurity situation also has created a deep skepticism as to what the true motives of the United States might be.

"The main purpose of America coming in was to defeat terrorism, and now it is not only worse but multiplying," one high-ranking political official lamented. "So is the plan just to use our country as a testing ground for bombs?"

Last month's droppingofa MOAB bombmight have killedsome terrorists, but it also meantbombing their country again. When locals seea Western face, theyoftenask why America provides massive sums ofaid and military fundingto Pakistan to fight terrorism,yet that neighboring nation is seenas theNo. 1 sourceof cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan. In fact,the Afghanistan-Pakistan region has the highest concentration ofterrorist groups in the world.Pakistan provides a safe haven and even passports formany ofthose terrorists, including the Taliban, yet the U.S. government provides funding to Pakistan.Afghansfrequently ask,how does this make sense to America?

Overall,an increasedU.S.involvement is generally desired by the Afghan people, if only to provide a security blanket. Most also acknowledge that it is only something of aBand-Aid slapped on a bullet wound.More of the same, and a military approach alone, won't bring them long-term peace.

An outdoor market in Kabul (Hollie McKay/Fox News)

And the sword is double-edged: The increased strength ofthe insurgency has forced the Afghan government to spend more on defenseand less on infrastructure, education andquality-of-life initiatives for its people.

Furthermore, Afghans across the board are fed upwiththe corruption that has plagued their governmentand their military since theU.S.invasion in 2001. EvenU.S.military officials havestated that,as published inSIGARsApril 30, 2017, Quarterly Report to Congress, corruption remains the No. 1 obstacle to Afghanarmedforces development. And yet, the U.S. continues to dedicate more than 60 percent of itson-budgetassistancefor Afghanistanto Afghanmilitaryneeds-- even though thetroopsthemselves seem not to be reaping the benefits of thosebillionsof dollars.

The shockingly high casualty rate of Afghangovernmentforces -- estimated to be around 100 a day -- is largely attributed to the perception thatcommanding officerranks are awarded not on performance, but on family connectionsand bribes. Moreover, the average soldier earns less than $50 a week -- barely enough to feedhimself,let alone a family.This has led to high defection rates andpoormorale. Who wantsto fight for a country where onlyelite andtribally-affiliated pockets are lined?

"The people who fight for us don't get good clothes, good foodoreven enough ammo,"Rahimisaid. "Sending thousands more U.S.troops isn't going to make the security situation better. The corruptionproblem must be solvedfirst."

However, others insist that there are many reasons to be optimistic about the future of Afghanistan.Many say that the country ison the right trajectory as it is, and that thepassageof time will stamp out government corruption and tribal contentions, and bring with it stabilityand prosperity. But an American stake in the game is vital.

Marshal Azizi at an outdoor shop (Hollie McKay/Fox News)

MarshalAzizi, who just turned 17, has spent almost his entire life under U.S.military protection and fears anything different.

"It will be a big threat for us if America leaves completely," he said. "I want to go to university and then join the Army and fight for my country. And fight alongside America."

According to Afghan businessmanSaedIsmailAmiri, there are many elements bringing instability to Afghanistan. But the upcoming generation has a far more open-minded, fiscally-savvy view of their country that will soon overtake the age-old tribal and ethnic hostilities that have held Afghanistan back from progress.

"We see hope. The number of educated people is increasing, young people are on social media,changehas startedto happen. But we still need support,"Amirisaid. "We need America to not leave us alone. This country will collapsein 30 daysif you do."

And, he stressed, should America choose to drawdownthe best thing is to keep that part of the foreign policy quiet.

"That was the biggest mistake Obama made, giving a departure date to the Taliban,"Amiriadded. "They just waited and now they are controlling 40 percent of the country."

Hollie McKay has been a FoxNews.com staff reporter since 2007. She has reported extensively from the Middle East on the rise and fall of terrorist groups such as ISIS in Iraq. Follow her on twitter at @holliesmckay

Original post:
Inside Afghanistan: Are more US troops what Afghans want? - Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: KABUL, Afghanistan It has been one month since the U.S. military dropped its largest non-nuclear combat weapon -- the MOAB -- to eradicate ISIS fromits base in Afghanistan's Nanganhar province. And still, the ghostly destruction zone is a vision that haunts.

FoxNews.comhas obtained exclusive images illuminating the bombs impact taken this week, showing the gouged and singed earth and even the limb of a dead fighter that had yet to be removed or buried.

While the use of the MOAB, which stands for Massive Ordnance Air Blast, has been controversial, with analysts claiming it had little effect other than decimating Afghanistan's territory, others on the ground are still insistent that it worked extremely well, not only to kill more than 90 ISIS fighters, but to eliminate supply routes and squash morale within the terrorist organization.

"This was very effective -- many of ISIS' training camps are gone, bunkers destroyed," Gen. Qadamshah Shahim, chief of the general staff of the Afghan Ministry of Defense, who just stepped down from his role following theMazar-i-Sharif attack, told Fox News.

But according to one high-ranking Afghan defense official, who requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the topic, the decision to use the MOAB was not taken hastily. Rather, it was a carefully calculated move.

Opening of an ISIS tunnel destroyed by MOAB (Hollie McKay/Fox News)

The official said that a request to use such a weapon -- one designed to penetrate the earth's surface and thus destroy underground tunnels and dwellings -- was brought to the attention of Afghan officials several months ago, and wasn't given the green light until all other options were explored and potential collateral damage and effectiveness studied.

"This was the only solution to bring stability to the area and avoid more bloodshed by this brutal terrorist group," saidCommander Ahmad Muslem Hayat, a former military attach for Afghanistan's British Embassy and current security adviser for the U.S.-based firm, TigerSwan. "This wasn't about sending quick messages to show strength to other threatening countries like North Korea. This was about saving innocent Afghan lives from ISIS torture."

Capt. William Salvin, a U.S. military spokesman in Kabul, defended the use of the MOAB, saying it was used for a specific tactical purpose on the battlefield.

Nonetheless, the area remains a no-go zone for all.

Buildings destroyed by MOAB (Hollie McKay/Fox News)

It is not yet clear whether U.S. forces -- which are currently revising the battle strategy toward the increasingly unstable Afghanistan -- intend to deploy such a large-scale weapon anytime in the near future. But there is a growing sentiment among the Afghan people for such attention to be devoted to defeating Taliban hubs, too, which they view as a much greater threat to their safety than the country's fast weakening ISIS branch.

"Different flags, different names," notedMajor Abadullah Karimi, spokesperson for the 202nd Shamshad Police Corps, the headquarters for operations in eastern Afghanistan."But the same games."

Hollie McKay has been a FoxNews.com staff reporter since 2007. She has reported extensively from the Middle East on the rise and fall of terrorist groups such as ISIS in Iraq. Follow her on twitter at @holliesmckay

Read more from the original source:
MOAB damage in Afghanistan extreme, widespread - Fox News

Efforts are being made to resolve a stalled copper mining deal between China and Afghanistan, a decade after the US$3 billion contract was signed, according to Afghanistans top envoy to China.

However, it is still too early to abandon hope that state-owned China Metallurgical Group Corp (MCC) will fully implement the agreement calling for development of the copper mine south of Kabul, because the completed project would be a win-win for both sides, Janan Mosazai told the Post in an exclusive interview in Beijing.

Comment: Time for China to come clean on its goals for Belt and Road Initiative

This is the issue that is being pursued right now by the Afghan government and between the Afghan government and the company, Mosazai said, adding that the discussions remain ongoing.

The project, jointly awarded to MCC and another state-owned Chinese company, Jiangxi Copper, in 2007, was the largest foreign investment deal in the war-torn country at the time.

Under the administration of then-Afghan president Hamid Karzai, MCC agreed to pay Afghanistan $3 billion to lease the Mes Aynak, a site 40 km southeast of Kabul that hosts Afghanistans largest copper deposit, for 30 years.

Mosazai said during the interview at the Afghan embassy that the contract was awarded to MCC because the company has committed to build a railway line from the mine to one of Afghanistans borders.

Because without a railway line you cannot transport natural resources because they are too heavy otherwise, he said, that was one of the main reasons why the Afghan government at that time awarded the copper mine contract to MCC.

Chinas MCC turns back on US$3b Mes Aynak Afghanistan mine deal

Mosazai said the Afghan government has done its part, including providing full security in the mining operation and preserving and relocating archaeological sites that have been discovered on top of the mine area.

Ten years have passed, and the copper has yet to be mined. MCC did not respond to a request for comment.

Security concerns have commonly hindered the ambitions of Chinese investors in the war-ravaged south Asian nation, where battles involving fundamentalist militants have barely stopped since 2001.

Security risks also have been highlighted as Chinese President Xi Jinping aggressively promotes his flagship One Belt, One Road initiative to connect China with Eurasia and beyond through massive investment in trade and infrastructure via central and south Asia to the Middle East and Africa.

In 2014, an award-winning documentary, Saving Mes Aynak, by Brent E. Huffman, brought the projects issues to light.

The documentary illuminates the threats the mine project has created for archaeologists, Chinese workers and local Afghans, and looks at the race to save the 5,000-year-old archaeological site from demolition. The film has helped bring the project international notoriety.

Can China score a new win in Africa with Xi Jinpings Belt and Road plan?

Shining an even brighter spotlight on the endeavour, an executive of MCC who was in charge of the deal in 2007 was expelled from the Communist Party last month for corruption at home, although his downfall was not linked to the mine contract.

Afghanistan is counting on Chinese investment to help revive an economy broken by years of war. China already is Afghanistans largest investor.

In 2011, China National Petroleum Corp, another state-owned company, was jointly awarded a major contract with an Afghan company to develop oil wells in northern Afghanistan. Early this year, state-run China Road and Bridge Corp signed a US$205 billion deal with the Afghan government to build a 187-kilometre road in central Afghanistan.

See more here:
Is there still hope for China, Afghanistan's long-stalled US$3 billion copper mining deal? - South China Morning Post

Pakistan cricket great, Younis Khan, will take over as Afghanistan coach on his retirement at the end of the current Test series in the West Indies, according to the chief of the countrys cricket Board.

Former Pakistan captain Younis Khan is set to join the Afghanistan national team as coach after he retires from international cricket at the end of the ongoing third Test against West Indies, Afghanistan Cricket Board (ACB) chairman Atif Mashal said on Thursday.

Mashal told a news channel here that Younis, 39, has agreed to coach the Afghanistan team. We are currently finalising his contract, he said.

Several of former Pakistan captains and players have coached the Afghanistan team, including current chief selector Inzamam-ul-Haq, former captain Rashid Latif and pacer Kabir Khan. Inzamam resigned as Afghanistans head coach last year to become Pakistans chief selector.

Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Shaharyar Khan also said on Thursday that the Board had plans for Younis and he would only disclose them after speaking to the former captain and getting his consent.

Younis became the first Pakistani batsman to score 10,000 Test runs in the first Test in the West Indies.

There have been media reports that PCB wants Younis to work with the Pakistan under-19 team and prepare them for the upcoming ICC Youth World Cup. Pakistan skipper Misbah-ul-Haq will also retired at the end of the Carribean Test tour.

View post:
Younis Khan to coach Afghanistan team after retirement - Hindustan Times

Following President Trumps inauguration, there was uncertainty regarding the administrations position on Iran, especially as far as the P5+1 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) was concerned. But Trumps strong campaign-trail statements about ripping up the worst deal ever negotiated have receded to the background. What currently remains at the forefront is no doubt acute dissatisfaction with the nuclear deal, but rather than ripping it up, the administration has stated that it wants to review the deal in the context of overall U.S. policy toward Iran. What has also moved to the forefront over the past three months is greater attention to Irans provocative regional behavior. In late January, the administration stated clearlyfollowing an Iranian ballistic missile test that can reach Western Europe with a nuclear warheadthat it was putting Iran on notice and would no longer be willing to turn a blind eye to Irans provocations, behavior that the Obama administration had often been willing to gloss over in the post-deal period (mid-2015 to late 2016) in order not to upset Iran, which would risk upsetting the deal. But how are the nuclear and other aspects of Irans behavior woven together in the new approach?

Secretary of State Rex Tillersons April 19 statement on Iran has provided important insight into this question. The day before Tillerson released his statement, and in accordance with the administrations obligation to submit every three months a letter to Congress tracking Irans compliance with the JCPOA, the administration stated that Iran was complying with the deal. But Trump insisted that the letter to Congress also note the administrations grave concern with Irans continued support for terrorism. Also, the president then instructed Tillerson to release a statement the next day clarifying the administrations overall position on Iran.

Tillerson began his statement by noting that the Trump administration is conducting across the entire government a review of its Iran policy. He went on to stress that what he would like to address today is Irans alarming and ongoing provocations that export terror and violence, destabilizing more than one country at a time. As a leading state sponsor of terrorism, Tillerson noted that Iran is intensifying regional conflicts and undermining U.S. interests in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon. Additionally, the country continues to support attacks against Israel. He then immediately made the connection to North Korea, saying that if it continued unchecked, Iran had the potential to travel the same path as North Korea, and take the world with it. Therefore there was a need to address all aspects of Irans behavior.

On the JCPOA specifically, Tillerson highlighted the major problems: first, the deal fails to achieve its objective of a nonnuclear Iran; second, it only delays the problem, which will have to be picked up by a future administration, and the Trump administration does not intend to pass the buck; and third, Iran remains aggressive all across the Middle East, posing threats that are ignored by the JCPOA. For all of these reasons, the administration intends to conduct a ninety-day comprehensive review of its Iran policy, and the JCPOA is only one component in the overall picture. It will, on this basis, meet the challenges that Iran poses with clarity and conviction.

What emerges from this statement is that not only has the JCPOA not solved the nuclear dimension of Irans behavior (by not achieving the objective of a nonnuclear Iran), but that Iran is posing an increasingly stepped-up threat in the region. By stressing the need for a comprehensive approach to policy on Iran, that looks at all components, Tillerson is saying that the different threats that Iran posesin the nuclear and regional arenascannot be separated. Another notable feature of Tillersons statement is the impact that developments in the North Korean arena have clearly had on the administration's thinking on Iranspecifically, regarding the dangerous implications of merely delaying a states nuclear capability. Several times Tillerson noted that the administration did not want its policy on Iran to follow the same failed approach that resulted in the current situation in North Koreawhich is viewed to be the result of buying off North Koreas nuclear advances for a short amount of time, only for the problem to reemerge and become a problem for a later administration.

Opponents of the Trump administrations approach have depicted these statements as conflicting, jumbled and confused. In particular, they point to the fact that the administration admitted that Iran was complying with the nuclear deal, and the next day released a statement highly critical of its behavior. However, while there have no doubt been many twists and turns in the administrations approach to other aspects of foreign policy, the emerging approach to the Iran nuclear challenge so far is not confused, although it is very different from the previous administration.

Read the original here:
Is Tillerson Signaling a Change in US Iran Policy? - The National Interest Online