Archive for July, 2017

US Turning Away From Afghanistan? – Heritage.org

The Trump Administration will soon make a final decision on its Afghanistan policy. The main question to be answered: Should the U.S. send more troops to help Afghan security forces continue to battle the Taliban?

After 16 years of military intervention in Afghanistan, it is completely reasonable to question the wisdom of increasing U.S. troops. But much of the opposition to increasing U.S. troop numbers is based on an old style of thinking about Afghanistan and the U.S. mission there.

U.S. policymakers have fallen into two traps when it comes to Afghanistan.

The first is that some still see the military mission through the lens of U.S. objectives in 2001. Both Afghanistan and the broader region have drastically changed since then.

The 2001 objectives, focused mostly on counterterrorism, have largely been achieved. No major terrorist attack originating from Afghanistan has succeeded in the U.S. since 2001. And the terrorist-enabling Taliban that rolled into Kandahar in 1994 is a shadow of its former self.

In 2001, the Taliban controlled the entire country, except for a small rump of territory run by the Northern Alliance. Today, according to the most recent quarterly report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the Taliban has control or influence in only 11 out of the countrys 407 districtsan area that contains only 9 percent of the Afghan population. Moreover, the level of violence is nowhere close to its latest peak in 201012.

Al Qaeda, which used Afghan territory with impunity in 2001, no longer enjoys a safe haven there. And while the Islamic State has made some inroads there, the threat it poses in Afghanistan pales in comparison to that posed by its affiliates in Syria, Libya, and Yemen.

Todays security objectives focus on helping the Afghans deal with the Taliban insurgency. The goal is to keep the country from reverting back to the chaos of the 1990s. This is much different from U.S. goals in 2001.

The second trap is failing to see Afghanistan for what it really is: a Central Asian country. Afghanistan is not part of the Middle East, and referring to it as part of the so-called broader Middle East is misleading. Culturally, historically, economically and geographically, Afghanistan is part of Central Asia.

In terms of policy, it is critically important to grasp that basic fact. Many of America's greatest challenges converge in Central Asia. There we must deal with an aggressive Russia, an emboldened China, energy transit for many of our NATO and Asian allies, the presence of Islamist extremism, and the flow and recruitment of foreign fighters.

On top of this, the region is experiencing growing influence from Iran, India, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Some of that can be good; much can be very bad for U.S. security interests. If the U.S. is going to confront these challenges, then Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia cannot be ignored.

As President Trump finalizes his plan for Afghanistan, he must consider what U.S. security objectives are in 2017, not what they were in 2001. He must also see the U.S. presence in Afghanistan through the lens of U.S. policy toward Central Asia, not the Middle East.

The well-established U.S. presence in Afghanistandiplomatic, economic, and militaryhelps America keep engaged in an important region at a relatively low cost. Sending an additional 3,000-4,000 U.S. troops to train, advise, and assist Afghan security forces is a prudent way to assure we can meet our strategic security objectives. And it will send all the right messages to our allies and foes alike, be they in Europe, Afghanistan, or the rest of Central Asia.

Keeping the U.S. flag flying in an increasingly important and geopolitically challenging part of the world is in Americas interest. Now is not a time to turn our backs on Afghanistan or Central Asia.

Original post:
US Turning Away From Afghanistan? - Heritage.org

White House Looks at Scaling Back US Military Presence in Afghanistan – Wall Street Journal (subscription)


Wall Street Journal (subscription)
White House Looks at Scaling Back US Military Presence in Afghanistan
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Unable to agree on a plan to send up to 3,900 more American forces to help turn back Taliban advances in Afghanistan, the White House is taking a new look at what would happen if the U.S. decided to scale back its military presence instead, according ...
Afghanistan imbroglioDaily Times
Toward an 'America First' foreign policyWashington Times

all 3 news articles »

Read the rest here:
White House Looks at Scaling Back US Military Presence in Afghanistan - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Pakistan demand Afghanistan apology – cricket.com.au

The feud between the Afghanistan and Pakistan Cricket Boards has continued to rumble on, with the PCB demanding a public apology from their neighbours in order to renew cricketing ties.

The two nations had earlier this year come to terms to play two T20 friendlies in July-August, however a bomb blast in Kabul on May 31, in which 80 people lost their lives, led to the ACB cancelling those matches.

"No agreement of friendly matches and mutual relationship agreement is valid with a country where terrorists are housed and provided safe haven," said one ACB official in the wake of the bombing, and it is that response for which the PCB is demanding an apology.

Quick Single: Clarke backs CA's arbitration proposal

"One day, (ACB) chairman (Atif Mashal) met me and was very positive about having good relations," said PCB chairman Shaharyar Khan.

"But next day he gave an extremely political statement about Pakistan, so then we told them that we don't have anything to do with you.

"He later did express his regret on making the statement and had also apologised privately.

"But we, the Board, have taken a position that until they apologise in public, we should not be reviving any cricketing ties with them."

Quick Single: Pandya could be our Stokes: Kohli

The full original discussions between the nations outlined two matches played in one another's countries (in the cities of Kabul and Lahore), and also incorporated support from the PCB to the ACB via venues for training camps, as well as the potential for ongoing tours between both junior and senior teams.

Mashal's response to the request for an apology came on Sunday following a Board meeting.

"Our relations with other cricket boards, including PCB, are based on mutual respect and national interests and we do not see the need for an apology," he said.

Afghanistan was last month awarded Test status along with Ireland, bringing the number of Test-playing nations up to 12.

Follow this link:
Pakistan demand Afghanistan apology - cricket.com.au

Telegram denies Iran’s claim it installed servers there – News & Observer


News & Observer
Telegram denies Iran's claim it installed servers there
News & Observer
Iran's communications and information technology minister was quoted Sunday as saying the widely used Telegram messenger service has transferred some of its servers into the country, but the encrypted application's founder swiftly denied the claim.

and more »

Continue reading here:
Telegram denies Iran's claim it installed servers there - News & Observer

Bernie’s Vote On Sanctions Was About Protecting The Iran Deal From Trump – HuffPost

This week, when the Senate voted 98-2 to pass new sanctions against Russia, Iran, and North Korea, the only senators to vote against the measure were Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY). While the Russia sanctions were the focus of nearly every big media outlets headlines, it is the Iran sanctions that are likely to be the most consequential due to their impact on the Iran nuclear deal, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The Trump Administration has been sending strong signals that they intend to unravel the JCPOA and even pursue Iraq-style regime change against Iran. Yet this did not stop Democrats from joining with Republicans to give Trump new tools to unravel the Iran deal. Some Democrats, including former Clinton campaign staffers, even deceptively attacked Senator Sanders and accused him of refusing to punish Russia over election meddling because of his no vote.

Adam Parkhomenko, former Clinton aide and founder of the Ready for Hillary PAC, tweeted: Feel the Bern? Bernie Sanders voted against Russian sanctions today. 98 Senators voted for Russian sanctions today. Sanders voted the same way anyone with the last name Trump would vote if they were in the Senate. No excuses stop making them for him.

Peter Daou, another Clinton adviser, also took to Twitter, writing, So Bernie Sanders was 1 of 2 (out of 100) senators to vote against Russia sanctions. And 1 of 4 to vote against the Magnitsky Act. Daous reference to the 2012 Magnitsky Act, another bill leveling sanctions against Russia, suggests he believes Sanders vote indicates he is tied to Putin.

These narratives that Senator Sanders is working to benefit Russia, perhaps because of resentment for his loss to Clinton, are nothing short of absurd. In fact, Sanders was the only progressive lawmaker to approach this bill responsibly.

In response to the criticism, Sanders tweeted: I am strongly supportive of sanctions on Russia and North Korea. However, I worry very much about President Trumps approach to Iran. Following Trumps comments that he wont re-certify Irans compliance with the nuclear agreement I worry new sanctions could endanger it.

H.R. 3364 lumps Russia and Iran sanctions together, giving both parties incentive to ensure its passage. With Democrats eager to punish Russia for its election interference in order to put Trump in a bind, and Republicans unhappy with Obamas Iran deal wanting to crack down on Iran, politicians on both sides had incentive to overlook potential problems with the bill.

However, lawmakers must be cautious of supporting politically expedient legislation at the cost of destroying one of todays most important international agreements. Although there is ambiguity regarding whether or not the Iran sanctions violate the JCPOA, it is evident that they undermine the spirit of the deal and remove the incentive for Iran to comply. Without actual sanction relief, Iran has no reason to abide by the agreement and continue to pull back its nuclear program. It is very concerning that the same Democrats who previously fought for and voted in support of the JCPOA are willing to accept the risks of this legislation with little thought as to how Trump could exploit it to fulfill his campaign promise of tearing up the nuclear deal. This is especially pressing in todays political climate, in which President Trump has said he will likely not re-certify Irans compliance with the deal in October, despite all the evidence.

It is imperative that lawmakers join Sanders in protecting the nuclear deal. Without the JCPOA, the escalating tensions could undo all the diplomatic progress made in the Obama era and result in another needless war in the Middle East.

See original here:
Bernie's Vote On Sanctions Was About Protecting The Iran Deal From Trump - HuffPost