Mediaboss Marketing

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Monday Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan need to do more to meet the terms of a 2020 peace deal with the United States to allow for all international forces to leave the country by a May deadline.

Stoltenberg spoke to reporters in Brussels ahead of a meeting later this week of allied defense ministers where the future of a NATO presence in Afghanistan will be discussed in line with the February 29 U.S.-Taliban agreement.

The NATO chief, however, cautioned against staging an abrupt foreign troop withdrawal, saying it could again turn Afghanistan into a haven for international terrorists.

There is still a need for the Taliban to do more when it comes to delivering on their commitments, including the commitment to break ties to not provide any support for terrorist organizations, Stoltenberg argued.

So, our presence is conditions-based. While no ally wants to stay in Afghanistan longer than necessary, we will not leave before the time is right, he stressed. We need to find the right balance between making sure that we not stay longer than necessary, but at the same time, that we don't leave too early.

The deal signed under former U.S. President Donald Trump helped launch the first direct peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government last September. It has allowed Washington to reduce the number of U.S. forces in the country to 2,500 from nearly 13,000 a year ago.

But Afghanistan has lately experienced a spike in violence, prompting U.S. President Joe Biden to review the deal to examine whether the insurgents are complying with their commitments and whether to close what has been the longest overseas U.S. military intervention.

The U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan has claimed the lives of more than 2,400 U.S. soldiers and cost Washington nearly $1 trillion.

Stoltenberg echoed the U.S.s skepticism about the Talibans intentions to end hostilities.

Peace talks remain fragile, and the level of violence remains unacceptably high, including Taliban attacks on civilians," Stoltenberg said. The Taliban must reduce violence, negotiate in good faith and live up to their commitment to stop cooperating with international terrorist groups.

Afghan leaders have alleged the Taliban are dragging their feet in the peace talks because the insurgents plan to seize power through military means once all U.S.-led foreign forces withdraw from the country.

The Taliban have repeatedly rejected allegations they are not complying with their obligations outlined in the agreement with the U.S. They have warned against abandoning the February 29 accord, saying it would lead to a dangerous escalation in the nearly 20-year-old war.

In a statement issued ahead of the NATO ministerial conference, the Islamist group insisted their fighters were not launching new offensives and instead were taking only defensive" actions to guard Taliban-held territory against attacks from U.S.-backed Afghan security forces.

Our message to the upcoming NATO ministerial meeting is that the continuation of occupation and war is neither in your interest nor in the interest of your and our people. Anyone seeking extension of wars and occupation will be held liable for it just like the previous two decades, the Taliban said.

Read more:
NATO Chief: No Troop Withdrawal from Afghanistan Before the Time Is Right - Voice of America

NATO defence ministers will meet via secure teleconference on Wednesday and Thursday (17-18 February 2021) to address NATO's missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, review progress toward fairer burden-sharing, and discuss the NATO 2030 initiative. Ministers will also meet with NATO partners Finland, Sweden, and the European Union to address shared security challenges.

This is our first meeting with the new Biden administration and an opportunity to prepare the NATO summit in Brussels later this year, said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. The NATO 2030 initiative will be high on the agenda, and Mr. Stoltenberg will present a set of proposals to defence ministers to begin preparations for the summit. Ahead of the meeting, he outlined the key points of his proposals, which include: increasing NATOs funding for deterrence and defence activities; enhancing Allied resilience; preserving NATOs technological edge; increasing political coordination; cooperating with like-minded partners; strengthening training and capacity building for partners; and adapting to climate change. The Secretary General will also recommend to update NATOs Strategic Concept.

On Thursday, ministers will discuss NATOs missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are at an important juncture. The Secretary General stressed that NATO strongly supports the peace process in Afghanistan and has significantly adjusted its presence as part of the process. However, he noted that the peace talks remain fragile and the level of violence remains unacceptably high. While no Ally wants to stay in Afghanistan longer than necessary, we will not leave before the time is right. So Ministers will continue to assess the situation on the ground and monitor developments very closely, he said.

Ministers are expected to agree to launch an expanded mission in Iraq, with more Allied personnel training and advising in more security institutions across the country. This follows a request from the Iraqi government, and close coordination with the Global Coalition.

They will also review progress toward fairer burden-sharing. The Secretary General announced that 2021 will be the seventh consecutive year of increased defence spending. Since 2014, European Allies and Canada have contributed a cumulative extra of 190 billion US dollars, he said.

Read this article:
Defence Ministers meet to address NATO 2030, burden-sharing, and missions in Afghanistan and Iraq - NATO HQ

Recently, President Joe Biden ordered the Pentagon to conduct a review of the U.S. military footprint around the world, and a May 1st deadline for complete withdrawal from Afghanistan is less than certain.

It is urgent and important for President Biden to fulfill his pledge to end the forever wars and despite the recommendation of theAfghanistan Study Groupto extend the May 1st deadline bring troops home from Afghanistan as scheduled. This would make for a major milestone for the new presidents first 100 days.

To begin, the Authorization for the Use of Military Forceapproved by Congresson September 14, 2001, was to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons. In other words, Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the then-Taliban-led government in Afghanistan because it gave safe haven to bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

That mission has long since been completed. The Taliban was driven from power in a matter of weeks. Al Qaedas senior leadership was decimated and scattered over the next several months. And if there was any doubt about achieving closure for 9/11, Osama bin Laden was eventually found and killed by U.S. Special Operations Forces in May 2011.

Instead, what was originally a counter-terrorism operation in response to the September 11 attacks quickly morphed into nation-building and a counterinsurgency war to protect a US-installed Afghan government. But such a war was not then and is not now a war of national survival. The Taliban and other militants in Afghanistan are internal threats to the Afghan government and part of a power struggle over who controls the country, but are not direct (let alone existential) threats to the United States. And however desirable a representative, multiethnic, democratic government in Afghanistan would be, it is not an absolute necessity for U.S. national security. All we need is for whatever government controls Afghanistan to understand that the United States will not tolerate support for or the harboring of any terrorist group with global reach that directly threatens the United States which is the essence of the terms of the path to apeace agreementbrokered in February 2020.

Yet the Afghanistan Study Group clings to the belief that an ongoing U.S. military presence is necessary to create conditions for an acceptable peace agreement. This despite

acknowledging the fact that the Taliban have signaled publicly that if all international forces are not withdrawn by May 2021, as envisioned in the Doha agreement, they will resume their jihad against the foreign presence and will withdraw from the peace process. More pointedly, the harsh reality is that nearly 20 years in the U.S. military presence has not been able to ensure peace in Afghanistan. So why would keeping them there longer result in something different?

To be sure, withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan will not magically result in peace breaking out. But neither will keeping them there because the U.S. military presence is part of what fuels Afghanistans violence. The reality is that U.S. troops are a foreign occupation force that breeds resentment with the population (not just with the Afghans but also the larger Muslim world) regardless of our intentions, just as would happen if a foreign military was ensconced in America.

Furthermore, the violence in Afghanistan represents a long-standing civil war within the Muslim world. It is not Americas war to fight or win. Only Afghans can determine the outcome.

The appropriate analogy is Americas experience in Vietnam another insurgent war unnecessary to U.S. national security. Peace only came after the U.S. military withdrawal. And over the ensuing decades, the result has been a socialist country pursuing increasingly capitalist economic policies and normalized relations with the U.S. and other Western countries. Not necessarily the outcome the U.S. would have envisioned if it was up to us to engineer but it wasnt and we couldnt; it was up to the Vietnamese people. And even if it isnt perfect in the eyes of the U.S., it is good enough for U.S. national security which is the paramount concern. The lesson is that we shouldnt let a quixotic quest for perfect be the enemy of good enough in Afghanistan.

Charles V.Peais a senior fellow with Defense Priorities. He has more than thirty years of experience as a policy and program analyst and senior manager, supporting both the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.Peais the former Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute and author ofWinning the UnWar: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism.

Read the rest here:
Why the Biden administration should keep to the Afghanistan withdrawal timetable - LA Daily News

Zimbabwe cricket team is set to lock horns with Afghanistan in an upcoming Test and T20I Series. Zimbabwe will be touring UAE- Afghanistans home ground- in March 2021. In the absence of few senior players, Zimbabwe has announced the 15-man squad for the upcoming Test tour against the Asian side. Batting all-rounder Sean Williams has been selected to lead the Test team.

Many Zimbabwe cricketers are out of the tour due to various health concerns. Senior batsman Brendan Taylor and Craig Ervine are not part of the squad due to which selectors have opted for Sean Williams to lead the team in the red-ball matches.

Chamu Chibhabha has been ruled out as he suffers from a thigh injury. Similarly, Tendai Chatara is going through right-upper-arm injury due to which he has not been able to make up for the series. Wicketkeeper-batsman PJ Moor will also be out of action due to hamstring injury.

Due to absence of above-mentioned senior players, selectors have rolled in few other players to the squad for the Afghanistan tour. Tarisai Musakanda, a top-order batsman, who last played a Test match against Sri Lanka in 2017, has been recalled.

Likewise, middle-order batsman and part-time spinner Ryan Burl has been recalled into the squad. Nurl has played just one Test against South Africa in December 2017.

For the T20I games, Zimbabwe cricket team will feature Milton Shumba, Faraz Akram and Tinashe Kamunhukamwe in the squad. Zimbabwe tour of Afghanistan consists of two Test matches and three T20Is. The first Test match will commence at Sheikh Zayed Stadium in Abu Dhabi on March 2, followed by 2nd and3rd Test on the same venue on March 10 and March 17 respectively.

The three T20I games are scheduled to be played on March 17, 19 and 20. All the three matches will be played at Sheikh Zayed Stadium in Abu Dhabi. Here is the full Zimbabwe squad for the Test series.

Zimbabwe last toured Pakistan in October-November 2020. Zimbabwe lost the three-match ODI series 2-1. In T20Is, Pakistan whitewashed Zimbabwe in all the three T20Is. On the other hand, Afghanistan hosted Ireland in a three-match ODI series. Afghanistan won all the three matches, which were held at Sheikh Zayed Stadium in Abu Dhabi (UAE) in January 2021.

Sean Williams (captain), Ryan Burl, Sikandar Raza Butt, Prince Masvaure, Brandon Mavuta, Tarisai Musakanda, Richmond Mutumbami, Blessing Muzarabani, Kevin Kasuza, Wesley Madhevere, Wellington Masakadza, Richard Ngarava, Victor Nyauchi, Donald Tiripano, Regis Chakabva.

Go here to read the rest:
Zimbabwe vs Afghanistan 2021: Zimbabwe Names Sean Williams To Lead His Team In The Test Series Against Afghanistan In The Absence Of Seniors - Cricket...

Feb 13th 2021

WHEN HE CAME to office last month President Joe Biden inherited, in Afghanistan, Americas longest war. He also inherited a deal that his predecessor struck a year ago with the Taliban, who have fought a bloody insurgency ever since American-led forces ousted them from power in late 2001. Under the accord, Donald Trump agreed to withdraw all American forces by May 1st 2021so supposedly ending this forever war.

Your browser does not support the

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

The Taliban leadership promised, in return, not to allow Afghanistan to be used as a base by terrorist groups planning attacks against America, as it was by al-Qaeda. It also committed itself to talks with the debilitated, American-backed government in Kabul, whose writ covers a diminishing portion of the country. As part of those talks, it specifically promised to negotiate a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire.

The United States has kept its side of the bargain. In recent months Mr Trump cut the American presence, which once numbered over 100,000 servicemen, to just 2,500 troops. That is a fraction of what American generals consider a minimum, for both counter-terrorism efforts and for helping the despondent Afghan armed forces prepare for life without American support. Yet apart from a (delayed) exchange of prisoners, very little else has moved forward. The Taliban still appear close to al-Qaeda. Talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government started six months late, in September, and have got nowhere. The gulf at times appears unbridgeable, including whether Afghanistan should be a theocracy or a republic.

Worst of all, the violencethe Talibans biggest bargaining chipcontinues. Scores are killed or injured each week in gun and bomb attacks. Recent assassinations in Kabul and elsewhere, widely assumed to be the work of the Taliban, have targeted not just police and soldiers but civil-society activists, journalists and, last month, two female judges. On February 9th five government employees were killed in two separate attacks in the capital.

Laurel Miller, a former American official at the International Crisis Group, a think-tank, points out that neither the Taliban nor the government believes they have exhausted their military options, so are half-hearted about talking. As May approaches, Mr Biden faces a pressing decision. Should the United States, having expended 2,300 American lives and nearly $1trn, cut and run, leaving the country to its fate? Or should it declare the peace deal dead and accept that the war, if not endless, is not over yet?

Mr Bidens gut surely favours the first option. When vice-president to Barack Obama, he argued against redoubled attempts at nation-building in Afghanistan. But his reappointment of Mr Trumps special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, who negotiated last years deal, suggests indecision. So does the administrations talk of a review.

With the clock running down, Ms Miller and others argue that Mr Biden should seek a six-month extension of the deadline. The intention would be to keep the peace process alive, while buying the Biden administration time to work out what it wants. A delay would reassure the Afghan government, which felt sidelined by the Trump deal and dreads American abandonment. Officials in Kabul hope to be treated as American partners again. Their message to the Biden administration, says a negotiator, Nader Nadery, is that a lasting peace deal must not be rushed, especially when the Taliban are not keeping to their side of the bargain.

But America has few ways to force the Taliban to behave better. The insurgents leaders, former international pariahs, may be reluctant to give up the boost in standing that the peace process has given them. And the Talibans friends in the region, in places like Pakistan, might conceivably be persuaded to press the insurgents to curb their attacks.

To some in both Afghanistan and America that seems like fantasy. They fear the Taliban will seize on any American foot-dragging to abandon the peace process altogether. Even if the Taliban do acquiesce to a delay, that may only be because they believe time works in their favour. Popular anger at the corruption and ineptitude of the Afghan government is high. Taliban commanders, meanwhile, are buoyed by their creeping conquest of the country. They talk not of power-sharing but of a coming takeover. Meanwhile, even if Mr Biden secures an extension, the same dilemma is likely to loom for him six months later: should I stay or should I go?

See also: We are tracking the Biden administrations progress in its first 100 days

This article appeared in the Asia section of the print edition under the headline "Cool it or blow?"

Read the original here:
Banyan - If America leaves Afghanistan there will be trouble | Asia - The Economist