Mediaboss Marketing

There is so much that is wrong, corrupt, troubling, and dangerous in Afghanistan that it seems strange to return from a visit with positive impressions. Yet so it was, more than in any time I can recall in the dozen years I have worked in and visited Afghanistan. After several years in which the Obama administration barely put enough resources into Afghanistan to avoid losing, and when the Trump administration has neither altered the strategy nor understood why it still hasnt produced victory, it is useful to look deeper into what is happening in some important areas that get little to no news coverage.

The three things that have so impressed me in my visit last month are in the reform of military leadership, civil service improvements, and anti-corruption efforts. None of the changes are complete, to be sure. All could be lost or reversed. The pushback against them from entrenched political elites is intense. The forthcoming elections may undercut them. But the important difference from the past is that the reforms now starting are Afghan initiatives. That makes it extremely important that American and NATO support for the new efforts be clear and unwavering so that they will be locked in place.

Military leadership, especially at the senior levels has been a grave weakness of the Afghan military. Generals appointed for political connections have performed poorly. The fall of the Afghan city of Kunduz in 2015 was a demonstration of government and military incompetence as much as it was a Taliban success. After my visit last year, I told senior officials of the Obama administration that without changes in the most senior Afghan National Army leadership, most of the other military reforms the United States was engaged in would be undermined. Now, slowly and painfully there is change.

A new defense minister has replaced one who was woefully inept. Lt. Gen. Mohammad Sharif Yaftali, for several years spoken of as one of the two best corps commanders, has become the army chief of staff. Most of the other corps commanders have been replaced by younger generals, promoted from the commands of brigades and, in one case, the elite commandos on merit rather than politics or family ties. And the replacement of at least some incompetent subordinate commanders has begun. In my experience, this is the first time that battle-tested officers are breaking through the political ceiling of senior ranks. It will take time, but President Ashraf Ghani intends this to be a generational change in Afghan military leadership. And as these new leaders take command, U.S. advisors and air support are essential. Current U.S. forces number just less than 9,000. The advisory teams they can field do not cover every corps, and of the combat brigades only a few receive periodic advice as floating teams of advisors move to reinforce the most critical needs.

The Obama administrations numbers games pulled advisors from the field too fast, leaving major Afghan units without U.S. advice and training. Air support was yanked before an Afghan air force even existed, leaving Afghan ground troops to fend for themselves for nearly three years until we finally adjusted our rules. The Afghan air force is now coming online, but at least two years will be necessary to deliver the planned aircraft.

The answer to the frequently asked question, why will a few thousand more troops help? is that they are needed for a limited time to make up for our mistakes of the last three years and allow Afghan forces to reach their full potential on the battlefield. It would be an enormous error not to field these critical reinforcements just when the Afghans are starting to make essential reforms.

The defense ministry reforms are only a beginning. The equally critical but far more corrupt interior ministry has barely been touched. As Ghani told me, illustrating the difficulty of the political pressures he faces, I could not do both at the same time. In two years Interior will be where Defense is now, but it will not be where Defense will be then. To offset the slowness in reforming the interior ministry, most of the border police and the so-called civil order police battalions (ANCOP) will be transferred to army control.

Another critical area of performance is the justice sector, particularly with regard to corruption. In the nearly 40 years Afghanistan has been at war, bribery, predatory behavior, and corruption have become a way of life. Elites steal not only to enrich themselves but to maintain a circle of supporters and security on which their power is based. But this tradition now is being threatened by the Anti-Corruption Justice Center (ACJC), an Afghan government effort to go after serious graft in senior ranks launched last year. It is specifically limited to defendants of at least the rank of major general or their civilian equivalent or theft of over the value of $7,500. Cases are referred from the Afghan attorney general, the older Major Crimes Task Force (long thwarted by courts releasing those they had charged), and other sources. Some 140 new staff members and investigators have been polygraphed to keep corruption out of the ACJC.

To date, there have be 36 convictions in 14 trials with sentences ranging from 6 months to 22 years. Two major generals have been sent to prison along with four deputy ministers. These convictions are still only a drop in a sea of corruption. They have not yet reached the most senior levels and many Afghans seem unaware of what is happening, perhaps because the court does a poor job of publicizing its activities. Nevertheless, its a start. The conviction of senior generals and deputy ministers is cutting away at the ability of those more senior to protect them.

Perhaps the most important challenge to the sewer that is Afghan politics is the newly reformed Independent Administration Reform and Civil Service Commission (IARCSC). Despite several previous efforts, the Afghan civil service has been mired in political patronage. Connections, not qualifications, are the job requirement at every level from tea boy to minister. The new commission has immense power to change this. It can change the structure of ministries to smooth bureaucratic overlaps, determine hiring procedures, and reverse appointments deemed not to have followed proper procedures.

The revitalized commission is led by Nader Naderi, a young but widely respected civil society and human rights leader. Commission members include young leaders from several civil society groups conspicuously outside the normal political ranks. Their first success provides an interesting case study in doing things differently. Required to select 500 employees to work on a new electronic identity card, they took applications from 25,000 candidates across the country; 14,000 were then qualified to take an exam scored by computer with the names removed. This approach threatened every aspect of political patronage. A wide assortment of political leaders and parliamentarians attacked the commission claiming, among other things, that exams were given only in Dari to eliminate Pashto speakers (not true, candidates had a choice). In the end, the successful candidates, picked on merit alone, hailed from 33 of the countrys 34 provinces with an ethnic balance roughly proportional to Afghanistans population. It was a huge success for non-political hiring that has raised the commissions prestige. However, the commission still confronts a gigantic task. It cannot tackle all ministries and all the personnel and pay systems at once. Success will take years. What Naderi and his colleagues are undertaking at Ghanis direction and with the support of national Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah is nothing less than challenging the basis of Afghanistans patronage politics. One should expect that the attacks on the commission will be ferocious, and quite possibly physical. This is the challenge of real reform in Afghanistan.

Our situation is not normal, Lt. Gen. Yaftali told me. We are trying to fight, to change our leadership, and to win back the publics trust all at the same time. This makes us slow. The current governments term is already halfway over, and campaigning for parliamentary elections next year and presidential elections in 2019 are already underway. The deal-making, corruption, and fraud of the electoral cycle will challenge even the maintenance of the reform effort. The United States will need to use its influence to help Afghan reformers stay on course.

Meanwhile, security remains a great challenge with many of the rural areas contested and attacks mounting in cities. The reform of the security services needed to reverse this state of affairs will take time. There are no magic solutions. One should not expect to see major change on the battlefield for at a year or two. The reforms beginning now should have begun years ago; they are necessary but not sufficient to alter a political culture that threatens the country. But they are a beginning and they manifest a political will not previously evident. They are actions, not just plans and promises. And for those reasons they should be a source for hope and a reason for continued support in Americas longest war.

Photo credit:WIN MCNAMEE/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

Read more from the original source:
In Afghanistan, Reform Can't Come Fast Enough - Foreign Policy (blog)

Critics often call the war in Afghanistan a stalemate where the United States is losing. They ignore the positive side and broader geopolitics of the region. Pakistan and Iran are both tacitly training and recruiting insurgents in the region, while Russia still has ties to the Taliban that complicate politics in the region. Over all of this, ambiguity still looms over U.S. strategy.

Afghanistan is a country that connects Central Asia with South Asia, the Middle East and Europe. The geographic location of Afghanistan has made the country most vulnerable in terms of hosting the great game among super powers. The United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Iran all have stakes in the country.

On the other hand, Afghanistan has occupied the worlds attention for the past sixteen years for all the wrong reasons. Terrorist attacks, day to day bombing, fighting and the doom and gloom headlines that appear on daily basis in the news media, have created a wrong image of the country.

The positive side is unfortunately often ignored. During the past 16 years, Afghanistan has achieved a lot, albeit with help from the U.S. and coalition forces. Afghanistan has gone from a nearly destroyed nation to a functioning democracy with a free and robust civil society and press, which is symbolic for the entire region.Going through the civil war and extremist regime of Taliban, the institutions were almost non-existent. Today Afghanistan is on its path towards institution building where health care and education is provided to citizens and people enjoy freedom in every sector of their lives.

In the effort to take responsibility for the war from coalition forces, the Afghan national security forces fight against terrorists every day. They are keeping the country safe and deny terrorists the territory and foothold to launch attacks against West and particularly the U.S. On average, each day 20 members of the Afghan national security forces give up their lives in the war against terrorism. In a summer show of force, the Taliban tried several times to take hold of some major cities. But they were pushed back by Afghan forces.

Given the fact that thousands of Afghan, American and coalition lives have been sacrificed during the past 16 years, we need win this war. After all these sacrifices, freedom and a thriving democracy in the region cannot be compromised and handed over to terrorists who think nothing of killing innocent civilians in their campaign of terror and pursuit of power.

The past two years were tough and challenging for the country. Internal political crises and challenges such as Afghan security forces assuming full responsibility of war, lack of necessary capabilities like not having close air support, medevac, surveillance and other necessary equipment, and a declining job market have put tremendous pressure on the government.

Despite all these formidable challenges, Afghanistan stood strong and is determined to route out terrorists. A progressive, democratic government is in place with a vision of peace, development and prosperity. A country that once was the worst place on earth for women now protects women's rights. From parliament to civil society, from media to government, brave women have had a chance to raise their voices and contribute to national development.

Yes, there are still many challenges with which the country is grappling. Insecurity, institutionalized corruption, an inefficient system of governance, lack of accountability and transparency, the limited reach of the rule of law across the country and a powerful illegal drug industry are a few. Roiled by three decades of conflict, the country has inherited many problems.

We need to respect the sacrifices of those who have lost their lives for the mission to keep the world safe. What kind of message will we have for the families who have lost their loved ones if we leave the mission unaccomplished? Afghanistan and the U.S. are critical partners in the mission. They have common enemies and shared interests and goals. The two countries have come too far and made too much progress in the past decade and a half to falter now. The relationship should continue and constant as both countries need each other. America needs Afghanistan as much as Afghanistan needs America.

Without U.S. support, all these achievements will be in danger and Afghanistan could fall prey to neighboring countries, their sponsored proxies, and terrorists bent on gaining power. The lack of a strategy only generates problems and doubts. It also encourages countries such as Pakistan and Iran to hedge bets over the ambiguous and uncertain situation, and to increase their support to the enemy.

Even as the U.S. government is negotiating its new strategy in the region, the enemy is stepping up their attacks and colluding with other interests in the region to put pressure on the Afghan government and cause worry among policymakers in Washington. But the fact is that they cannot stand against Afghan security forces as long as the partnership with America remains strong.

Ahmad Shah Katawazai (@askatawazai) is the defense liaison for the Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington, D.C.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See the article here:
America shouldn't allow its partnership with Afghanistan to fray - The Hill (blog)

"The strategic decisions have not been made," Mattis said.

During comments at the Pentagon press area, Mattis insisted "all options" remained on the table for how to approach Afghanistan, and said those options included a full withdrawal as well as a proposal for the use of more contractors to manage the US effort there.

When asked if President Donald Trump had confidence in Gen. John Nicholson as the top US commander in Afghanistan, Mattis replied, "ask the President," and voiced his own support for the general.

"He is our commander in the field," Mattis said. "He has the confidence of NATO. He has the confidence of Afghanistan. He has the confidence of the United States, and the President again is looking at all aspects of our effort over there as he must in his responsibilities as the commander-in-chief."

Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster have been leading a review of US policy in Afghanistan.

Nearly 16 years after the US led a coalition there to topple the Taliban from power, US-led forces and the new Afghanistan government have struggled to stabilize the country and push back against pressure from militants like the Taliban.

As the administration has delayed its decision, outside voices have sought to advocate their own strategies for the war-torn nation.

He said the US should appoint a viceroy, a term that recalls colonialism, to manage the nation and deploy military contractors with Afghanistan military brigades over the long term.

See more here:
Mattis: Administration 'very, very close' to Afghanistan decision - CNN

The administration is split over what stance to adopt on the longest-running war in US history.

Possible plans include sending thousands more troops into the nearly 16-year conflict, or taking the opposite tack and pulling out, leaving private military contractors to help the Afghans oversee the fragile security situation.

"The president along with the vice president will meet with the national security team on Friday at Camp David to discuss the South Asia strategy," the White House said.

Trump's generals have called the Afghan conflict a "stalemate" and even after years of intensive help from the US and other NATO nations, Afghanistan's security forces are still struggling to hold back an emboldened Taliban.

In an early move to address the situation, Trump gave his Pentagon chief, former general Jim Mattis, broad powers to set troop numbers.

But several months later, the level remains stuck at about 8,400 US and about 5,000 NATO troops, mainly serving in a training and advisory capacity.

Mattis wants to wait until the White House has come up with a coherent strategy for not just Afghanistan but the broader region, notably Pakistan and how it deals with terror groups, before he commits to adjustments.

But reports have suggested that other Trump advisers, including his influential strategy chief Steve Bannon, favor cutting American losses by pulling out or sending private military contractors to replace troops. DM

See more here:
Trump at Camp David on Friday for Afghanistan talks - Daily Maverick

defense.govThe Taliban released an open letter urging President Trump to end the war in Afghanistan at the same time Russian presidential envoy to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov suggested that if the U.S. is "unable to do anything serious" in Afghanistan, it should leave.

Oh, boy.

Neither Kabulov nor the un-identified Taliban author are wrong in principle16 years of war in Afghanistan has produced almost nothing. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to eliminate one of the few safe havens for terrorists in the world. Safe havens have proliferated since then.

But their statements could have the opposite effect, toughening the resolve of forces within the Trump administration who want to extend the Afghan war.

"Despite the fact that the former administration officials created a large coalition to attack our country, your 16 year military presence in Afghanistan has resulted in Afghanistan becoming the most unstable country security wise, the most corrupt administrative wise and the poorest country economically," the Taliban letter reads.

Most recently, the terror group ISIS entered Afghanistana group that did not exist in 2001 and has benefited from U.S.-induced instability in Iraq to metastasize into what it is today. Trump told reporters last month that ISIS was "falling fast" in Afghanistanhe has been relatively skeptical of continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan despite surrounding himself largely with military advisors committed to continuing the conflict.

Kabulov insisted Afghanistan has become a "global incubator of international terrorism." It's an odd claim for a country embroiled in Syria, a veritable melting pot of terror groups, and reportedly opposed to the U.S. leaving the Afghanistan war to private contractors.

The U.S. should leave Afghanistan. As I noted last week, neither privatizing nor prosecuting the war in some other way better articulates precisely why the U.S. is in Afghanistan in the first place. This has been missing almost from the beginning. The core of Al-Qaeda was disposed of relatively quickly and the mastermind of 9/11 (the raison d'etre for the Afghanistan war) was killed in 2011 in Pakistan.

Any honest effort to define U.S. security goals in Afghanistan would reveal none worth continuing the war. If Afghan government agencies or mineral companies or anyone else require security, they are free to contract with private companies.

The Taliban and Russian comments raise the question of whether they would actually prefer to see the U.S. continue to waste blood and treasure in Afghanistan. The U.S. presence there is a powerful recruitment tool for the Taliban while weakening the U.S. position as a global power.

Vladimir Putin is not so politically tone-deaf to think his envoy's opinion that the U.S. has lost in Afghanistan will benefit opponents of the war in the Trump administration. Trump may oppose the war, but he's been very sensitive about being seen as a Russian puppet. This sensitivity has contributed to a string of stupid mistakes, including the firing of FBI Director James Comey, which led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as a special counsel to investigate the Trump campaign's alleged Russia connections.

It's not hard to imagine Trump doubling down in Afghanistan to demonstrate he isn't following Russia's lead. And that would be a shame.

Nearly 40 years ago, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Publicly, President Carter condemned the invasion and called on the Soviet Union to withdraw. Privately, Carter and his advisors were excited about the prospect of a protracted Soviet war in Afghanistan weakening the USSR. Afghanistan, after all, was the graveyard of empires.

Afghanistan may not be a "Soviet Vietnam" on its own, Zbigniew Brzerzinski, Carter's national security advisor, wrote in a memo, but U.S. support for rebel groups could get it there. Those rebel groups, the mujahedeen, eventually became the Taliban as well as parts of Al-Qaeda.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the two American troops most recently killed in Afghanistan.

Read more:
Taliban, Russia Want US to Withdraw From Afghanistan - Reason (blog)