Mediaboss Marketing

To a generation of younger Americans, waging the War in Afghanistan must seem like one of the things our government does as a matter of course, like collecting taxes or distributing Social Security payments. The vast majority of students graduating from high school this spring have no memory of a time when we weren't fighting in that far away country. And soon enough, some number of them will likely arrive there to continue the campaign.

Donald Trump, in one of his occasional peacenik fits on the campaign trail, expressed enthusiasm for ending the war. Now that he's in office, however, he's mulling another surge of troops to support the beleaguered and hopelessly corrupt government we helped install in Kabul.

Play Video

Afghanistan's capital was hit by one of its worst attacks since 2014 on Wednesday. At least 90 people were killed and around 400 were injured in ...

The reasons why we should risk more American lives and spend more taxpayer money on such an adventure are, at best, unclear. The arguments for why we shouldn't, on the other hand, are quite obvious.

The first argument is that nobody knows what victory in Afghanistan would even look like. We originally invaded the country in order to remove the Taliban government, which at the time controlled most of the country and provided a safe haven to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

Bin Laden is thankfully dead, but Al-Qaeda has moved on to establish safe havens elsewhere, and the Taliban now controls more territory in Afghanistan than at any point before the invasion. ISIS is getting in on the action, too, having claimed a stretch of land along the porous Pakistani border.

Progress is being made, in other words, but not by us. Trump's generals hope he will send an additional 3,000 to 5,000 troops to the country to help remedy the situation. To put that number in perspective, we currently have about 8,400 troops there, down from 100,000 in President Obama's first term.

How such a modest surge would do much to defeat the Taliban, or bring them to the negotiating table, is anyone's guess. Far and away the most likely scenario is that it just prolongs the current stalemate, which at this point seems to be America's only real goal in the country. Defeat may be inevitable, but can be prolonged indefinitely.

Perhaps defeat is too strong a word, because America doesn't lose wars anymore, so much as we just don't win them. Since the end of World War II, we've waged a number of them, but had only one or two clear-cut victories: the 1983 toppling of a Cuban-sponsored junta in Grenada, and perhaps the emancipation of Kosovo from Serbian rule via a brief bombing campaign.

Why is that? Well, it's not for lack of cash. Despite the frequent Republican lament that our military is somehow hobbled by budget cuts, we still spend more on our armed forces than Russia, China, France, India, Great Britain, Israel, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, Iran, Spain, Canada, and Turkey combined.

Proponents of such expenditures often note that this allows the U.S. to garrison its forces worldwide, from Europe to Africa to Asia. That's nice, but you'd think, for all that money spent, we could decisively vanquish enemies like we did when we were a poorer, weaker country. Defense spending gobbles up roughly half of our discretionary budget, so if we're not in the business of winning wars outright anymore, perhaps we should wage fewer of them and spend more of that money on other things.

The rejoinder here is that modern wars can't always be fought to decisive conclusions, but are still worthwhile. The world wars were big conflicts, which we now avoid in part by constantly fighting small ones. If no entity is in a position to pose any kind of real, existential threat to the United States, then the little wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and the rest are a small price to pay.

In reality, the price is quite large. Thousands of Americans have died in our post-9/11 wars, along with hundreds of thousands of the foreign civilians we set out to liberate. In a pure dollar amount, we've sunk more into Afghan reconstruction that we did to rebuild Western Europe after World War II.

Play Video

The Pentagon says two Army Rangers who were killed during a raid in Afghanistan might have died from friendly fire. The soldiers were targeting t...

For all that, Afghanistan remains a backwards, largely illiterate, and essentially feudal society of competing tribes and Islamist militants with no real central government. Setting up some kind of stable democratic government in Afghanistan was always a transparently fantastical notion, but for all the money spent, it stands to reason that we should expect a little more by way of results.

Yet Afghanistan remains a sideshow, one only rarely talked about on the campaign trail in 2016. The public's focus has long since moved on to other calamities. We've reduced the longest running war in our history to background noise.

This makes sense, to a certain extent, because why would we bother ourselves with a problem with no solution? Leaving now would be traumatic for the national psyche. This is the war we waged to avenge the greatest attack ever launched against us; how can we admit to ourselves that that fight is ending in what could be charitably called a draw?

The other option a seemingly endless war in a place of limited strategic interest -- is not much better, and in many ways far worse. In a 2015 interview, then-candidate Trump once famously called the war a "mistake." Tellingly, it's one of the few statements he felt compelled to retract under political pressure. Say what you will about women and POWs, Mr. Trump, but never call the Afghan War a mistake.

In that same interview, Mr. Trump asked how long Washington expected American forces to remain in Afghanistan: "Are they going to be there for the next 200 years? You know, at some point, what's going on?"

This is still a pressing question. And now that he's president, he has the opportunity to provide us with an answer.

Continue reading here:
Commentary: Why are we still in Afghanistan? - CBS News

The moment you step outside the airport in Kabul, the first thing that strikes you are the roses. They are everywhere lining the dusty motorway into town, clustering in flowerbeds in traffic circles, blooming in private gardens.

The second thing you see is fear. Foreigners hide behind their sandbagged walls, barbed wire, armed guards and bulletproof vehicles. But many locals are terrified too, including those who fled the country but were recently returned against their will.

There is every reason to be afraid. The fragile government struggles to make headway against the Taliban, which is likely more powerful now than at any time since 2001. Other armed opposition groups including the so-called Islamic State have seized control of parts of the country and carry out devastating attacks even in securitized areas of Kabul and elsewhere.

The first thing that strikes you when you arrive in Kabul are the roses. The second thing you see is the fear

Violent incidents are increasingly frequent. According to the U.N., 2016 was the deadliest year for civilian casualties since its records began in 2009. While my Amnesty International colleagues and I were in Kabul in May 2017, a German aid worker and an Afghan guard were killed, and a Finnish woman likely kidnapped, during an attack on a Swedish NGO in the city. Wednesdays horrific bomb attack near the German embassy in central Kabulwhich killed 80 people and injured 350 the vast majority of whom were Afghan civilians shows that rather than winding down, the conflict in Afghanistan is escalating dangerously.

British and American authorities warn their citizens against traveling to Afghanistan, saying it remains unsafe "due to the ongoing risk of kidnapping, hostage taking, military combat operations, landmines, banditry, armed rivalry between political and tribal groups" and "insurgent attacks."

And yet, Western governments have deemed the country safe enough for Afghan asylum-seekers to return. Over the past decade and a half, a number of European countries (as well as Australia) have signed Memoranda of Understanding with Afghanistan, through which the country agrees to readmit its citizens under certain conditions. These types of arrangements are not necessarily unreasonable, but their implementation must conform with international law, which prohibits states from transferring people if there is a risk of serious human rights violations.

Nonetheless, even as the situation in Afghanistan has unmistakably worsened, Western governments have escalated their efforts to return Afghans who fled war and persecution.

At an aid conference in October 2016, under pressure from the European Union, the Afghan government signed the EU-Afghanistan Joint Way Forward, a document that paves the way for the forcible return of an unlimited number of Afghans from Europe. One unnamed Afghan government official called the agreement a poisoned cup the country was forced to accept in return for development aid.

Hundreds of returns have taken place since the agreement was signed six months ago. My colleagues and I recently spoke with Afghans deported from Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. While everyone in Afghanistan is at risk, many of the returned people we spoke to were extremely vulnerable, and their returns likely violated international law.

I feel like Ive fallen from the sky

A young man, whom Ill call Azad, is at serious risk because of his sexual orientation. Afghanistan criminalizes same-sex sexual conduct, and there have been reports of harassment, violence and detention by police. When Azad found out he was going to be deported from a European country, he tried to kill himself and was put under suicide watch until he was forcibly returned.

This was his first time in Kabul, he told me. I have nowhere to go," he said. "Maybe I will join the drug addicts in the west of the city, just to get some shelter.

Despite his young age, Azad has survived a number of tragedies. After fleeing the war in Afghanistan as a child he grew up in Iran, and later lost his mother when the family tried to make its way to Europe. While clearly frightened during our conversation, he broke down completely when speaking about her death. All I want to do is visit her grave.

Another man, Farid, is in danger of religious persecution for converting to Christianity. Like Azad, he left Afghanistan as a child, grew up in Iran, then fled to a European country. He is terrified about what will happen to him in Afghanistan. Still in shock after being wrenched from his adopted country and faith community, he said: I feel like Ive fallen from the sky. I dont believe Im here.

He, too, had never been to Kabul. I dont know anything about Afghanistan," he told me. "Where will I go? I dont have funds to live alone and I cant live with relatives because they will see that I dont pray.

European governments and leaders know Afghanistan is not safe. If they don't stop deporting people like Azad and Farid, they will have blood on their hands

Their stories are, unfortunately, far from exceptional. Some deportees have already suffered violence after being forcibly returned to Afghanistan. An Afghan who returned from Germany in January 2017 was injured in a suicide attack near the Supreme Court just two weeks later, according to a recent report by the Afghan Analysts Network. Several other people including young children were injured in attacks by armed groups in Kabul, a member of the Afghanistan Migrants Advice and Support Organization told us.

None of these people should have been sent back. When they walked out of the airport, the country was probably as unknown to many of them as it was to me and they face far greater risks.

European governments and leaders know Afghanistan is not safe. If they don't stop deporting people like Azad and Farid, they will have blood on their hands.

This article was first published by Politico.

Read more from the original source:
They fled Afghanistan fearing for their lives but Europe forced them back - Amnesty International

In January 2013, Sgt. Joe Schicker was Missouris hero.

A member of the Missouri National Guard, he had been injured while deployed in Afghanistan. When he returned to Missouri, none other than Gov. Jay Nixon pinned the Purple Heart on Schickers battle fatigues. Then Schicker stood in the House gallery in his dress blues as Nixon gave his annual State of the State address and received a standing ovation from state lawmakers.

Just hours after his team arrived at their base, Taliban insurgents attacked, Nixon said of Schicker. In successfully repelling the attack, several Missouri Guardsmen, including Sgt. Schicker, were wounded. Sgt. Schicker, you represent every man and every woman who has ever fought to defend our great nation, in every era and on every field of battle.

Four years later, Master Sgt. Joseph Schicker is a forgotten man.

Today, he cant talk without shaking. He gets dizzy and has headaches. Hes missing his two front teeth from a fall. Hes had 26 pieces of shrapnel removed from his body from that Oct. 15, 2012, attack.

Im 57 years old, and I cant type. I cant drive, he says. I just feel like Ive been wounded and no one wants to help me.

Shortly after Schicker returned from Afghanistan, this time without the cameras running and the governor gushing, he was demoted. It wasnt because of anything he did wrong. Schicker was a full-time Guardsman, paid at the Armys E-8 rank, assigned to the Homeland Response Force at Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis. This is the unit that does highly technical work sweeping Busch Stadium before big events, for instance. It was one of the first Guard units on the scene in Ferguson.

When Schicker returned from serving in Afghanistan, he was told there wasnt an E-8 rank slot available for him in his unit. If he wanted to keep the same job, he would have to accept a demotion to E-7. Otherwise, hed have to find another job in a different unit.

Schicker, the returning hero, asked for an exception to be made. Could he be double-slotted? Could he be assigned to another command but still do the important work he was qualified to do?

No way, said the Guard. Rules are rules.

Schicker accepted his demotion.

Thats what a military lifer does. Schicker, who lives in Dittmer, joined the Army right out of high school. He lived in Shrewsbury at that time and graduated in 1978 from Bishop DuBourg High School in the city. He ended up in special forces. Schicker was deployed four times. He has taken sniper fire and won two Bronze Stars, three Army Commendation Medals and two Purple Hearts. He has post-traumatic stress disorder.

I saw a lot of people die, Schicker said.

In 2015, he found out the Missouri Guard had lied to him. At least two other soldiers both higher ranks than Schicker were granted exceptions to the rule the Guard cited in forcing him to take a demotion.

At this point in Schickers career, it wasnt the rank that bothered him. But as he neared retirement, his final rank could make up to a $600-a-month difference in his retirement pay.

In 2016, Schicker sought a promotion to sergeant major. He was denied because his previous demotion reduced the amount of credit he would have otherwise earned for his service in the Enlisted Promotion System board.

I would have qualified if they hadnt made me take the demotion, he said.

Schicker complained up his chain of command and got no help. He filed a complaint with the inspector general. He called Nixons office. I couldnt get a return call, he said.

So he wrote to U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill.

In August 2016, McCaskill wrote Gen. Stephen Danner, the adjutant general in charge of the Missouri National Guard.

Danner gave McCaskill the same answer he had given Schicker. Rules are rules. He told her that Schicker would be eligible for promotion in February 2017.

That was four months ago. Schicker was denied promotion again.

Because of his previous injuries, hes unable to attend the Sergeant Majors Academy. So the promotions board said this year he was once again ineligible for the rank he should have long ago been awarded.

In April, McCaskill wrote again.

This time Danner admitted that on a very limited basis, exceptions had been made to the rule that forced Schicker to take a demotion, but that the wounded veteran who was treated like a returning hero didnt qualify.

McCaskill said she is still working to get to the bottom of what happened to Schicker. Our government makes a promise that our service members will be treated fairly after returning home, she said. If that promise wasnt fully kept in this case, then I want to get to the bottom of it.

Schicker is still in the Guard. He is on convalescent leave and has brain surgery scheduled for later this year. He hopes that will fix the shaking and the headaches. He spends a fair amount of time at the VA in St. Louis, where he sees plenty of those men and women Nixon referred to in his speech, who represented the country on every field of battle.

They paraded me around the state when I came back and said, Look, hes one of our heroes, Schicker said. Now, they dont care. Ive been wronged and no one wants to help me.

2017 the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

More here:
This Wounded Soldier Came Back From Afghanistan A Hero. Then He Was Demoted - Task & Purpose

West Indies have included potential debutant Roston Chase in their one-day international squad for a three-game series against Afghanistan.

With 10 Tests to his name, all-rounder Chase is set to finally get an opportunity to prove himself in the 50-over format, starting in St Lucia on Friday.

Chase who has tallied 728 runs and three centuries since making his international debut last year was named in the 13-man squad, led by captain Jason Holder.

He was considered before for ODI selection, primarily because of his all-round ability, Cricket West Indies (CWI) chairman of selectors Courtney Browne said.

With his prolific run scoring in the last Test series and his continued steady all-round performances in the PCL we now feel its time to introduce him to ODI cricket. He was not among the leading run-scorers in the Super50 tournament earlier this year, but we believe with his skill set and the way he has been playing he could be an asset.

His outstanding efforts with the bat could not be ignored any longer [and] coupled with his useful bowling can only add value to our squad.

The West Indies who lead their T20 series against Afghanistan 2-0 ahead of the final game on Monday will play ODIs on June 9, 11 and 14 at the Darren Sammy National Cricket Stadium.

West Indies squad: Jason Holder (c), Devendra Bishoo, Jonathan Carter, Roston Chase, Miguel Cummins, Shannon Gabriel, Shai Hope, Alzarri Joseph, Evin Lewis, Jason Mohammed, Ashley Nurse, Kieran Powell, Rovman Powell

Continue reading here:
Roston Chase included in West Indies ODI squad for Afghanistan series - Hindustan Times

LONDON Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei lashed out on Sunday against U.S. President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia's leaders for their new regional alliance against Tehran, saying it would bear no fruit.

Trump singled out Iran as a key source of funding and support for militant groups during his visit to Saudi Arabia in late May, two days after the Iranian election in which pragmatist President Hassan Rouhani won a second term.

During Trump's visit to Riyadh, the U.S. sealed a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, Iran's regional arch-rival.

Khamenei called the visit a display of brazenness.

"The U.S. president stands alongside the leaders of a tribal and backward system and does the sword dance, but criticizes an Iranian election with 40 million votes," the supreme leader said in a speech broadcast live on state TV.

"Even with a multi-billion dollar bribe to America, the Saudis cannot achieve their goals in the region," he said.

Khamenei accused Washington of double standards, saying it turned a blind eye to the "killing of Yemeni people in mosques, streets and their homes," while claiming to promote human rights around the world.

Saudi Arabia is leading a Sunni Arab coalition fighting the Iran-allied Houthis in Yemen, part of the same regional power struggle that is fuelling the war in Syria.

The Iranian president championed a nuclear deal with the United States and five other major powers in 2015 that led to the lifting of most sanctions against Iran, in return for curbs on its nuclear program.

The landmark deal, however, has not led to normalization of ties between the two countries that Tehran hoped for.

Trump has frequently called the agreement "one of the worst deals ever signed" and said Washington would review it.

European countries, Russia and China have expressed concern that the Trump administration might withdraw from the deal.

"European leaders are now saying the Americans are not trustworthy. Imam Khomeini said the same thing more than 30 years ago," Khamenei said at the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, marking the 1989 death of the founder of the Islamic Republic.

Relations with Washington were broken after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution and enmity to the United States has long been a rallying point for hardline supporters of Khamenei in Iran.

Khamenei hailed the high turnout in the election, saying that it showed the majority of Iranians still supported the Islamic revolution and its uncompromising values.

(Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

SYDNEY Australian police on Monday shot dead a gunman in the city of Melbourne who had been holding a woman hostage, police said, a confrontation for which the militant group Islamic State claimed responsibility.

Follow this link:
Iran's leader lashes out at Trump, Saudis for anti-Tehran alliance - Reuters