Mediaboss Marketing

Militant attacks are escalating. Afghan military casualties are high. Deserters number in the thousands. Kabuls coffers are depleted. American officials are cowering in their fortified compounds.

Thats the dark picture that the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction the U.S. governments watchdog agency for the Afghanistan war painted in its July 2017 quarterly report.

Since invading Afghanistan in late 2001 in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks, the United States has spent $714 billion on military and reconstruction efforts in the country, SIGAR noted. 4,200 American servicepeople have died in Afghanistan since 2001. Most recently, U.S. Army private Hansen Kirkpatrick died in an indirect-fire attack in Helmand province on July 3, 2017.

As of May 2017, there were 8,300 U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan, part of a total NATO support force of around 15,000 troops.

But the heavy U.S. investment in money and lives has not resulted in anything resembling a winning strategy. Several top U.S. security officials characterized the war in Afghanistan this quarter as a stalemate that, if left unchecked, could deteriorate further in favor of the insurgency, SIGAR explained.

Between March 1 and May 31, 2017, the United Nations tallied 6,252 security incidents in Afghanistan an increase of nearly a quarter over the previous quarter. To be fair, militants are more active during Afghanistans warm summer months than they are during the bitterly cold winter months, so an increase relative to the winter of 2017 is not surprising.

However, attack are also up compared to the summer of 2016, when the United Nations counted 6,122 incidents. According to the United Nations, between Jan. 1 and June 30, 2017, 3,581 Afghan civilians were hurt and 1,662 killed in combat, roughly as many as were injured or died during the same period in 2016.

The causes of the casualties have changed. 1,151 of the civilian casualties in the first half of 2017 resulted from suicide and complex attacks. Thats a 15-percent increase over 2016 and more than in any previous six-month period since the United Nations began documenting civilian deaths and injuries in 2009.

The increase came largely from Kabul, SIGAR reported. Nineteen percent of the civilian casualties between January and June occurred in the city. One of the bloodiest terror attacks of the war occurred in Kabul on May 31, 2017. A truck bomb exploded in the center of the citys diplomatic quarter during rush hour, killing around 150 people and injuring hundreds.

Afghan troops are dying at a high rate, too. From Jan. 1, through May 8, 2017, 2,531 members of the Afghan armed services died in combat. Another 4,238 were wounded in action. On April 21, 2017, as many as 10 Taliban attackers reportedly wearing Afghan uniforms infiltrated the base of the Afghan National Armys 209th Corps near Mazar-e Sharif, killing up to 250 Afghan soldiers.

According to SIGAR, Afghan military casualties for the first half of 2017 are consistent with military casualties from the same period in 2016. As of May 2017, 12,073 Afghan military personnel were unaccounted for, SIGAR noted. Some are deserters. Others absences could reflect poor record-keeping, the watchdog group explained.

As with civilian deaths, Afghan military deaths in 2016 reached elevated levels and stayed there. The U.S. military headquarters for Afghanistan told SIGAR that Afghan troops losses steadily increased after Afghan forces took the lead in security operations beginning in January 2015.

Amid heavier fighting, the Taliban and other militant groups have barely budged. The percentage of districts under government control has stabilized at 59.7 percent, the same as in the winter of 2017, SIGAR reported.

But the relentless insecurity has had a chilling effect on American activities in Afghanistan. SIGAR warned of U.S. officials who barely leave their compounds for fear of coming under attack. SIGAR is concerned that U.S. officials, whether at State, USAID, Justice, Treasury, Commerce or elsewhere, cannot oversee the billions of dollars the United States is dedicating to Afghan reconstruction if, for the most part, they cannot leave the U.S. embassy compound.

Hunkering down behind blast walls damages not only the U.S. civilian mission but also handicaps the U.S. military mission, SIGAR added. In the long run, such extreme risk aversion and avoidance may even contribute to greater insecurity, since it limits U.S. diplomatic reach to the very Afghans necessary to foster stability, rule of law and economic growth, while sending an unintended but dangerous message to friend and foe alike that the terrorists should be feared and may actually be winning.

Kabuls finances are taking a hit, too. In the first six months of 2017, the Afghan governments domestic revenues declined a quarter year-on-year, according to SIGAR. Meanwhile, the value of the countrys illicit opium trade which helps to fund the Taliban and other militant groups increased from $1.56 billion in 2015 to $3.02 billion in 2016.

Read more here:
Wow, Afghanistan Is Getting a Lot Worse - War Is Boring

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Suicide Bombers Kill 20 at Shiite Mosque in Afghanistan Wall Street Journal (subscription) KABULTwin suicide bombings inside a Shiite Muslim mosque in Afghanistan's Herat province killed at least 20 people and wounded dozens more on Tuesday, officials said, the latest in a series of attacks targeting the minority. A gunman opened fire on ...

View original post here:
Suicide Bombers Kill 20 at Shiite Mosque in Afghanistan - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Two U.S. military personnel suffered minor injuries after their HH-60 Black Hawk helicopter crashed in Afghanistan on the morning of August 1, Operation Resolute Support said in a statement.

The helo suffered a mechanical issue during operations near Achin in the countrys eastern province of Nangarhar, making what U.S. Central Command officials characterized as a hard landing. Rescue personnel managed to safely evacuate the crew, and ORS is in the process of recovering the downed copter.

The Nangarhar province has become a stronghold for Afghan ISIS offshoot ISIS-Khorasan, and a target for increased U.S. special operations forces activity since the Department of Defense dropped a 21,600 pound GBU-43 Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (or mother of all bombs) on an ISIS-K position in April.

The Taliban initially attempted to claim responsibility for the crash, asserting in a statement that militants opened fire on the helicopter during its landing around 2 a.m., killing everyone aboard and foiling an attempted raid, according to Stars and Stripes. That claim appears to be hot garbage.

The incident, though relatively minor, underscores a growing problem: Poor upkeep and maintenance of the NATO coalitions fleet of Black Hawk attack helicopters will likely result in more mechanical failures not just in Afghanistan, but on battlefields across the Middle East and North Africa where U.S.-led forces focus on beating back the rising tide of Islamic militants.

A Pentagon inspector general audit of HH-60 airframe and training evaluations found that Army Aviation and Missile Command officials did not effectively manage airframe condition evaluations for the Black Hawk fleet, neglecting to require regular evaluations (AMCOM didnt conduct a single airframe assessment for a whole year between March 2016 and March 2017) or enforce standards for unit commanders responsible for grounding potentially faulty aircraft.

Evaluators identified safety problems with some H-60 helicopters that required the unit commander to ground (restrict flying) those helicopters, according to the audit. But the unit commander did not always allow evaluators to finish theevaluation of additional helicopters because he did not want to ground more helicopters if additional safety problems were identified. As a result, Army pilots and crew could be flying H-60 helicopters with unidentified structural defects.

Of course, this assessment primarily applies to the Army; the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard all use modified H-60 Black Hawks for various operations. But given the essential nature of the attack copter to counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan and beyond as well as the cultural symbolism of a downed Black Hawk, thanks to the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu and journalist Mark Bowdens account of the campaign in Black Hawk Down the Army may want to take a harder look at ensuring that mechanical failures like the one that occurred over Achin dont happen again.CENTCOM and ORS did not immediately respond to request for comment from Task & Purpose. We will update this story with more information as it becomes available.

WATCH NEXT:

See original here:
2 US Soldiers Injured In Black Hawk Crash In Afghanistan - Task & Purpose

In recent weeks, US President Donald Trump and his advisers have joined Saudi Arabia in accusing Iran of being the epicenter of Middle East terrorism. The US Congress, meanwhile, is readying yet another round of sanctions against Iran. But the caricature of Iran as the tip of the spear of global terrorism, in Saudi King Salmans words, is not only wrongheaded, but also extremely dangerous, because it could lead to yet another Middle East war.

In fact, that seems to be the goal of some US hotheads, despite the obvious fact that Iran is on the same side as the United States in opposing the Islamic State (ISIS). And then theres the fact that Iran, unlike most of its regional adversaries, is a functioning democracy. Ironically, the escalation of US and Saudi rhetoric came just two days after Irans May 19 election, in which moderates led by incumbent President Hassan Rouhani defeated their hardline opponents at the ballot box.

Perhaps for Trump, the pro-Saudi, anti-Iran embrace is just another business proposition. He beamed at Saudi Arabias decision to buy $110 billion of new US weapons, describing the deal as jobs, jobs, jobs, as if the only gainful employment for American workers requires them to stoke war. And who knows what private deals for Trump and his family might also be lurking in his warm embrace of Saudi belligerence.

The Trump administrations bombast toward Iran is, in a sense, par for the course. US foreign policy is littered with absurd, tragic, and hugely destructive foreign wars that served no real purpose except the pursuit of some misguided strand of official propaganda. How else, in the end, to explain Americas useless and hugely costly entanglements in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and many other conflicts?

Americas anti-Iran animus goes back to the countrys 1979 Islamic Revolution. For the US public, the 444-day ordeal of the US embassy staff held hostage by radical Iranian students constituted a psychological shock that has still not abated. The hostage drama dominated the US media from start to finish, resulting in a kind of public post-traumatic stress disorder similar to the social trauma of the 9/11 attacks a generation later.

For most Americans, then and now, the hostage crisis and indeed the Iranian Revolution itself was a bolt out of the blue. Few Americans realize that the Iranian Revolution came a quarter-century after the CIA and Britains intelligence agency MI6 conspired in 1953 to overthrow the countrys democratically elected government and install a police state under the Shah of Iran, to preserve Anglo-American control over Irans oil, which was threatened by nationalization. Nor do most Americans realize that the hostage crisis was precipitated by the ill-considered decision to admit the deposed Shah into the US for medical treatment, which many Iranians viewed as a threat to the revolution.

During the Reagan Administration, the US supported Iraq in its war of aggression against Iran, including Iraqs use of chemical weapons. When the fighting finally ended in 1988, the US followed up with financial and trade sanctions on Iran that remain in place to this day. Since 1953, the US has opposed Irans self-rule and economic development through covert action, support for authoritarian rule during 1953-79, military backing for its enemies, and decades-long sanctions.

Another reason for Americas anti-Iran animus is Irans support for Hezbollah and Hamas, two militant antagonists of Israel. Here, too, it is important to understand the historical context.

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon in an attempt to crush militant Palestinians operating there. In the wake of that war, and against the backdrop of anti-Muslim massacres enabled by Israels occupation forces, Iran supported the formation of the Shia-led Hezbollah to resist Israels occupation of southern Lebanon. By the time Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, nearly 20 years after its original invasion, Hezbollah had become a formidable military, political, and social force in Lebanon, and a continuing thorn in Israels side.

Iran also supports Hamas, a hardline Sunni group that rejects Israels right to exist. Following decades of Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands captured in the 1967 war, and with peace negotiations stalemated, Hamas defeated Fatah (the Palestine Liberation Organizations political party) at the ballot box in the 2006 election for the Palestinian parliament. Rather than entering into a dialogue with Hamas, the US and Israel decided to try to crush it, including through a brutal war in Gaza in 2014, resulting in a massive Palestinian death toll, untold suffering, and billions of dollars in damage to homes and infrastructure in Gaza but, predictably, leading to no political progress whatsoever.

Israel also views Irans nuclear program as an existential threat. Hardline Israelis repeatedly sought to convince the US to attack Irans nuclear facilities, or at least allow Israel to do so. Fortunately, President Barack Obama resisted, and instead negotiated a treaty between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (plus Germany) that blocks Irans path to nuclear weapons for a decade or more, creating space for further confidence-building measures on both sides. Yet Trump and the Saudis seem intent on destroying the possibility of normalizing relations created by this important and promising agreement.

External powers are extremely foolish to allow themselves to be manipulated into taking sides in bitter national or sectarian conflicts that can be resolved only by compromise. The Israel-Palestine conflict, the competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the Sunni-Shia relationship all require mutual accommodation. Yet each side in these conflicts harbors the tragic illusion of achieving an ultimate victory without the need to compromise, if only the US (or some other major power) will fight the war on its behalf.

During the past century, Britain, France, the US, and Russia have all misplayed the Middle East power game. All have squandered lives, money, and prestige. (Indeed, the Soviet Union was gravely, perhaps fatally, weakened by its war in Afghanistan.) More than ever, we need an era of diplomacy that emphasizes compromise, not another round of demonization and an arms race that could all too easily spiral into disaster.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, Director of Columbias Center for Sustainable Development and of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, and, most recently, Building the New American Economy

The views expressed in opinion articles published on euronews do not represent our editorial position

Project Syndicate 2017

Read the original post:
View: America's dangerous game with Iran - euronews

Last Updated Aug 2, 2017 11:23 AM EDT

President Trump has signed a sweeping sanctions measure that targets Russia, Iran and North Korea, the White House said in a statement Wednesday.

The president's signature comes after some speculation that he could veto or not sign the legislation, which passed both chambers of Congress in overwhelming votes last week. Vice President Mike Pence and other White House officials had signaled, however, that Mr. Trump planned to sign the bill into law.

While he signed the bill, the president made clear in a statement Wednesday that he's signing the bill "for the sake of national unity" even though he isn'tsatisfied with some of its provisions.

"I favor tough measures to punish and deter bad behavior by the rogue regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang. I also support making clear that America will not tolerate interference in our democratic process, and that we will side with our allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization," he said.

He added, "Still, the bill remains seriously flawed particularly because it encroaches on the executive branch's authority to negotiate."

The bill maintains and expands sanctions against the Russian government. Most importantly, it will require congressional approval before the president can ease or lift sanctions on Russia. The measure also targets sanctions on Russian activities that undermine U.S. cybersecurity, sanctions on Russian crude oil projects and on certain transactions with foreign sanctions evaders and human rights abusers, among other things.

A day after the Senate passed the new set of sanctions, Russia's Foreign Ministry last Friday announced countermeasures in which it set a Sept. 1 deadline for Washington to reduce the number of diplomatic staff in the country and ordered some U.S.-run facilities in Russia to close.

Play Video

In response to Russia's meddling in the 2016 election, Congress has imposed new sanctions on the country. CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer...

Mr. Trump's signature is significant given that he spent time on the 2016 campaign trail promoting a platform that included a warming of relations with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. The two leaders met in person for the first time in early July at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. Mr. Trump later came under fire for a previously undisclosed conversation that he had with Putin at the time over dinner in which only a Russian interpreter was present.

The measure also targets Iran's ballistic missile program, its support for terrorism and human rights violations, and yet it would still comply with the Iranian nuclear deal. Specifically, it imposes sanctions on any foreign person or foreign entity that does business with an entity already designated by the administration that has a connection to Iran's ballistic missile program. These sanctions, for example, could apply to any financial institution or any foreign company that provides key parts or components to Iran's missile program.

As for North Korea, it enforces compliance with United Nations shipping sanctions against North Korea and it imposes new sanctions in response to human rights abuses by the North Korean government and its bellicose behavior abroad.

The bill came togetherin July after a series of road bumps that lawmakers encountered over the last several months.

This also comes a day after the Senate confirmed Christopher Wray to serve as FBI director, replacing James Comey, who Mr. Trump abruptly fired in early May. Special Counsel Bob Mueller then took over the federal investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election, which is still underway.

The U.S. intelligence community concluded in a report in early January that Putin ordered a campaign involving covert intelligence operations and overt propaganda to undermine faith in the U.S. election, disparage Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump's election chances.

CBS News' Jillian Hughes contributed to this report.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Originally posted here:
Trump signs sweeping sanctions bill targeting Russia, Iran and North Korea - CBS News