Mediaboss Marketing

One thing all Americans should be able to agree on is that its time for a change of course in Afghanistan.

Our current path is untenable. The Obama administration didnt deliver the seeming victory that propelled him to a second term in office. Instead, it slow-walked defeat, leaving the problem to Obamas successor.

Now, President Trump has taken the prudent step of rejecting incremental increases and superficial changes to the Obama-era policy. What comes next should be a big departure from business as usual, even if it adds on what appears to be more risks. The real risk is the one we know already the one involved in continuing to do what doesnt work.

Some in Congress have grown restive. Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, recently said, We are losing in Afghanistan and time is of the essence if we intend to turn the tide.

McCains plan would flow more troops into the beleaguered country, and give them significantly broader latitude against the Taliban, al-Qaida, the Islamic State and others. The Department of Defense has already offered a surge plan of its own.

One radical alternative making the rounds in Washington would set aside the unsatisfactory legacy of the past 16 years. Crafted by Erik Prince, familiar to some from heading the Blackwater organization, the approach begins with the view that the war in Afghanistan has been misaligned with the history of Afghanistan. While the country has maintained a long tradition of decentralized rule, our military effort has been too decentralized.

The Prince plan envisions an inflow of contractors to replace outgoing troops, and a new trustee with powers perhaps most analogous to the sweeping ones possessed by Gen. Douglas MacArthur during the occupation of postwar Japan.

Thats an interesting idea, but American military power cannot be unleashed from the military chain-of-command or robust congressional oversight. Without U.S. troops on the ground, an army of contractors could become a trip-wire, forcing the U.S. military to react to attacks on U.S. personnel on the timetable of our enemies.

Still, Prince is right to warn that Afghanistans revolving door of commanders and vicious cycle of operations just cant go on especially with major military threats spreading far outside that theater of war.

Defense Secretary James Mattis said Monday that the president is very, very close to a decision about a new strategy in Afghanistan, and that the use of private security contractors is one option under consideration. The president is also considering a proposal to send 3,000-4,000 more U.S. troops, and the future of Gen. John Mick Nicholson, the commander of NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, is uncertain.

Advertisement

The new administration has had to deal with the war in Syria, the fight against ISIS and the threat from North Korea, but it probably needs no reminder that the war in Afghanistan, now the longest war in U.S. history, has been left on the back burner long enough. With all options on the table, its time for the president and Congress to choose a path forward that will bring the war to the best conclusion it is possible to achieve.

Go here to see the original:
Time to choose path forward in Afghanistan - LA Daily News

Energy and water minister says construction of CASA-1000 project in Afghanistan will cost $404 million, 20 percent of which will be paid by the Afghan government.

Officials from the Ministry of Water and Energy (MoWE) on Tuesday said construction of the 1000 Electricity Transmission and Trade Project for Central Asia and South Asia (CASA) will be launched soon by an Indian company, which has won the tender.

The ministry said the company will complete the construction of the project in three years.

The energy and water minister Abdul Basir Azimi said the construction phase of the project will cost $404 million USD of which 80 percent will be funded by the World Bank and the remaining 20 percent will be paid by the Afghan government.

The project can have a good result if the work on it in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Afghanistan is started at the same time, he said. Fortunately we have established good cooperation and coherence (with CASA member countries). Surveys and other administrative activities of the project have moved forward at a good pace from Afghanistan's side.

CASA-1000 project was officially inaugurated last year.

In July officials from the CASA-1000 member countries met in Tajikistan to discuss the project.

Economic affairs analysts said they are not very hopeful about the implementation of the project due to a lack of cooperation between the affected countries.

The analysts term the increasing insecurity in Afghanistan as another hurdle for the electricity transmission project.

Insecurity is the biggest obstacle on the way of investments and economic growth in the country. If government can eradicate insecurity, especially on the route of CASA-1000, then we will benefit from the project, said Nabi Sadat, an economic affairs analyst.

CASA-1000 project will cost more than $1 billion USD and if the project is completed, it will transfer 1,300 megawatts of power from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan to Pakistan through Afghanistan.

Afghanistan will get 300 megawatts of power annually from this project and at least $50 million USD as transit rights per annum.

Go here to read the rest:
Indian Company Wins Tender For CASA-1000 In Afghanistan - TOLOnews

By Paul McLeary

North Korea waits. It looks like the Kim Jong Un will wait a bit before firing off ballistic missiles in the direction of Guam, as his regime has threatened to do. Kim, who was reportedly briefed on the details of the plan Monday, said he would hold off and see if the Yankees persist in their extremely dangerous reckless actions on the Korean peninsula and in its vicinity, before making any decision, North Korean media reported.

Washington and Tokyo move. While he waits, top American and Japanese officials will huddle in Washington this week for a meeting of the Security Consultative Committee, the first time the group has met since since April 2015. The talks will bring together Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono and Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera on one side and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis on the other.

Mattis stopped by the press bullpen at the Pentagon on Monday for an informal, off-camera press conference he was on his way back to his office from the dry cleaner and said if Pyongyang loosed missiles toward Guam, well take it out.

If they shoot at the United States, Im assuming they hit the United States. If they do that, its game on, he said, adding, you dont shoot at people in the world unless you want to bear the consequences. I think if they fire at the United States it could escalate into war very quickly, Mattis said.

He insisted, however, that hes not spoiling for a fight. We will defend the country from any attack, at any time, from any quarterbut it is not declaring war. Its not that Im over here, you know, Dr. Strangelove, doing things like that, OK?

The Erik Prince option. Mattis also confirmed that the White House is considering replacing U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan with contractors, as was recommended by former Blackwater head Erik Prince. Its part of the options being considered, Mattis said. And the presidents open to the advice of the secretary of state, and myself and the director of the CIA. According to reports, virtually the entire cabinet is opposed to the idea. Yet, it persists.

Afghanistan strategy. Rinse and repeat. I believe we are close, the SecDef said, repeating a line U.S. officials have been using since at least April. The president, as I told you before, has delegated a fair amount of tactical and operational decision making to me. He has not delegated one ounce of the strategic decision making, nor should he, nor would I expect that.

Trump transgender ban. The fact is, we have received no direction that would indicate any harm to anybody right now.

Washington draws closer to Cairo. In the latest sign the Trump administration is looking to overturn Obama-era policy at home and abroad, the U.S. military is preparing to restart a long-running military exercise with Egypt after President Barack Obama cancelled it in 2013 to protest the killing of hundreds of protesters in Cairo, FPs Paul McLeary writes in an exclusive story.

The restart next month of the Bright Star exercise, a bilateral effort now focused on counterterrorism operations, comes as Egypt struggles to contain a potent insurgency on the Sinai Peninsula. Though Egypt may invite other countries such as Sudan as observers, only U.S. and Egyptian forces will take the field, U.S. defense officials said. More here.

Bannon in Limbo. NYT: Rupert Murdoch has repeatedly urged President Trump to fire him. Anthony Scaramucci, the presidents former communications director, thrashed him on television as a white nationalist. Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser, refused to even say he could work with him.

For months, Mr. Trump has considered ousting Stephen K. Bannon, the White House chief strategist and relentless nationalist who ran the Breitbart website and called it a platform for the alt-right. Mr. Trump has sent Mr. Bannon to a kind of internal exile, and has not met face-to-face for more than a week with a man who was once a fixture in the Oval Office, according to aides and friends of the president.

Shiite militias pushing forward in Iraq. The often Iranian-backed Shiite militias in northern Iraq have largely held their fire for the past year as Iraqi government forces took Mosul from the Islamic State. But now they want in. Today we want to speak loud and clear that [the PMF] are actively involved in Tal Afar military operations and will participate in all areas where operations are taking place, spokesman Ahmed al-Asadi told reporters in Baghdad.

The militias have in the past been accused of sectarian killings, and their very presence on the battlefield stirs up resentment and fear among the local Sunni population, but the groups want to be involved in the fight. Its up to Baghdad to decide.

Welcome to SitRep. As always, please send any tips, thoughts or national security events to paul.mcleary@foreignpolicy.com or via Twitter: @paulmcleary.

Iranian drone buzzes USS Nimitz for the second time this week. (Reuters)

Inside the Hue City chiefs mess meltdown and sexscandal (Navy Times)

Sen. McCain decries criticism of McMaster as smear tactics (AP)

Syria investigator del Ponte says enough evidence to convict Assad of war crimes (Reuters)

Philippines says China has agreed no new expansion in South China Sea. (Reuters)

U.S. sanctions hit Russian hopes of a Trump bump for investment. (Reuters)

Saudi Arabia and Iraq to re-open border crossing after 27 years. (Reuters)

Photo Credit: STR/AFP/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

See the article here:
SitRep: North Korea Waiting Game; Mattis on War, Dr. Strangelove, Afghanistan, And More - Foreign Policy (blog)

KABUL (Pajhwok): President Ashraf Ghani on Monday said expanding Afghanistans relations with central Asian countries would bring about many facilities to trade and transit spheres, a statment from the Presidential Palace said.

President Ghani during a meeting with World Bank (WB) Vice President for South Asia Region, Annette Dixon, said the unity governmet was committed to reforms in all spheres.

The president said reforms had been brought to judicial organs and other sectors including mining. While referring to his goverment efforts about regional connectivity, the president said said construciton of railway tracks between Kunduz and Mazar-i-Sharif would connect Iran and China through Afghanistan.

He said Afghanistans strengthening relations with central Asian countries would help facilitate the countrys trade and tranist sectors.

Ghani said he had many programmes for managing waters of the country and their implementation would improve agriculture and electricity production.

Annette Dixon assured of the banks continued economical and development support to Afghanistan, saying South Asian countries would be encouraged to expand tranist and trade ties with Afghnistan.

sns/ma

Read the original post:
Iran, China to be connected via Afghanistan: Ghani - Pajhwok Afghan News (subscription) (blog)

As President Trump wrestles with Americas role in Afghanistan, he should first decide what our objectives are today compared to what we wanted immediately after Sept. 11, 2001.

Initially, the United States overthrew the Taliban regime but failed to destroy it completely. Regime supporters, allied tribal forces and opportunistic warlords escaped (or returned) to Pakistans frontier regions to establish sanctuaries.

An Afghan family leaves the site of an attack where the house of an Afghan member of parliament was attacked by Taliban last night in Kabul, Afghanistan December 22, 2016. Reuters

Similarly, while the Talibans ouster also forced al-Qaida into exile in Pakistan and elsewhere, al-Qaida nonetheless continued and expanded its terrorist activities. In Iraq and Syria, al-Qaida morphed into the even more virulent ISIS, which is now gaining strength in Afghanistan.

In short, Americas Afghan victories were significant but incomplete. Subsequently, we failed to revise and update our Afghan strategic objectives, leading many to argue the war had gone on too long and we should withdraw. This criticism is superficially appealing, recalling anti-Vietnam War activist Allard Lowensteins cutting remarks about Richard Nixons policies. While Lowenstein acknowledged that he understood those, like Sen. George Aiken, who said we should win and get out, he said he couldnt understand Nixons strategy of lose and stay in.

Today in Afghanistan, the pertinent question is what we seek to prevent, not what we seek to achieve. Making Afghanistan serene and peaceful does not constitute a legitimate American geopolitical interest. Instead, we face two principal threats.

TALIBANS RETURN TO POWER

First, the Talibans return to power throughout Afghanistan would re-create the prospect of the country being used as a base of operations for international terrorism. It is simply unacceptable to allow the pre-2001 status quo to re-emerge.

Second, a post-9/11 goal (at least one better understood today) is the imperative of preventing a Taliban victory in Afghanistan that would enable Pakistani Taliban or other terrorist groups to seize control in Islamabad. Not only would such a takeover make all Pakistan yet another terrorist sanctuary, but if its large nuclear arsenal fell to terrorists, we would immediately face the equivalent of Iran and North Korea on nuclear steroids. Worryingly, Pakistans military, especially its intelligence arm, is already thought to be controlled by radical Islamists.

Given terrorisms global spread since 9/11 and the risk of a perfect storm the confluence of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction the continuing threats we face in the Afghan arena are even graver than those posed pre-9/11. Accordingly, abandoning the field in Afghanistan is simply not a tenable strategy.

However, accomplishing Americas goals does not require remaking Afghanistans government, economy or military in our image. Believing that only nation building in Afghanistan could ultimately guard against the terrorist threat was mistaken. For too long, it distracted Washington and materially contributed to the decline in American public support for a continuing military presence there, despite the manifest need for it.

There is no chance that the Trump administration will pursue nation building in Afghanistan, as the president has repeatedly made clear. Speaking as a Reagan administration alumnus of USAID, I concur. We should certainly continue bilateral economic assistance to Afghanistan, which, strategically applied, has served America well in countless circumstances during the Cold War and thereafter. But we should not conflate it with the diaphanous prospect of nation building.

Nor should we assume that the military component in Afghanistan must be a repetition or expansion of the boots-on-the-ground approach we have followed since the initial assault on the Taliban. Other alternatives appear available and should be seriously considered, including possibly larger U.S. military commitments of the right sort.

Even more important, there must be far greater focus on Pakistan.

A VOLATILE & LETHAL MIX

Politically unstable since British Indias 1947 partition, increasingly under Chinese influence because of the hostility with India, and a nuclear-weapons state, Pakistan is a volatile and lethal mix ultimately more important than Afghanistan itself. Until and unless Pakistan becomes convinced that interfering in Afghanistan is too dangerous and too costly, no realistic U.S. military scenario in Afghanistan can succeed.

The stakes are high on the subcontinent, not just because of the Af-Pak problems but because Pakistan, India and China are all nuclear powers. The Trump administration should not be mesmerized only by U.S. troop levels. It must concentrate urgently on the bigger strategic picture. The size and nature of Americas military commitment in Afghanistan will more likely emerge from that analysis rather than the other way around. And time is growing short.

John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations and, previously, the undersecretary of State for arms control and international security.

Read more:
What's next in Afghanistan? - American Enterprise Institute