Mediaboss Marketing

The lure of Afghanistan as a war-torn Klondike is well established: In 2006, the George W. Bush administration conducted aerial surveys of the country to map its mineral resources. Under President Barack Obama, the Pentagon set up a task force to try to build a mining industry in Afghanistan a challenge that was stymied by rampant corruption, as well as security problems and the lack of roads, bridges or railroads.

None of these hurdles has been removed in the last eight years, according to former officials, and some have worsened. They warn that the Trump administration is fooling itself if it believes that extracting minerals is a panacea for Afghanistans myriad ills.

It would be dangerous to use the potential for resource exploitation as a selling point for military engagement, said Laurel Miller, a senior analyst at RAND who served until last month as the State Departments special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The barriers to entry are really quite considerable, and that kind of argument could fuel suspicion about Americas real intentions in Afghanistan.

But for Mr. Trump, as a businessman, it is arguably the only appealing thing about Afghanistan. Officials said he viewed mining as a win-win that could boost that countrys economy, generate jobs for Americans and give the United States a valuable new beachhead in the market for rare-earth minerals, which has been all but monopolized by China.

China already has a $3 billion contract to develop a copper mine about 25 miles southeast of the Afghan capital, Kabul. Officials said Mr. Trump was determined not to spend American lives and treasure in Afghanistan only to watch China lock up its rare-earth deposits, which are used to make products from wind turbines to computer chips.

Mr. Silver, the chemical executive, may head an effort to maximize the rights for American companies to extract these minerals, according to a senior official.

Mr. Trumps interest also reflects how his military advisers have struggled to present him with other persuasive reasons to send troops to the country, where the United States has been at war since 2001.

The White Houses review of Afghanistan policy led by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster was supposed to be finished by the middle of July. Instead, it bogged down after Mr. Trump expressed displeasure with a proposal from General McMaster for a modest troop increase and a multiyear commitment to the country.

Policy meetings have become increasingly heated, officials said, as Mr. Trump and his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, have squared off against General McMaster. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson is also said to be unhappy with the current proposals.

Vice President Mike Pence, not General McMaster, will lead a meeting Wednesday of National Security Council principals on Afghanistan. Some officials said that reflected General McMasters isolation; others said that the general welcomed Mr. Pences involvement and that the two were closely aligned on the policy.

But Mr. Trump, it is clear, is not. In June, he grudgingly agreed to give Mr. Mattis the authority to send additional troops a number believed to be about 4,000 as a stopgap measure to stabilize security in Afghanistan. But Mr. Mattis has not yet used his authority, perhaps reflecting his recognition that the commander in chief is uncomfortable with it.

When reporters last week asked Mr. Trump at a meeting at the Pentagon whether he planned to send more troops, he answered, Well see, and added, ISIS is falling fast, suggesting he viewed the counterterrorism threat in Afghanistan as declining.

Worried that Mr. Trump will be locked into policies that did not work for the last two presidents, Mr. Bannon and the presidents son-in-law, Jared Kushner, have brought in outside voices, including Mr. Feinberg and Erik D. Prince, a founder of the private security firm Blackwater International. Both have urged using more private contractors and giving the C.I.A. an oversight role in the conflict.

In addition, Mr. Feinberg has reached out to people involved in the Obama administrations effort to build Afghanistans mining industry. Some warned him that the prospects for a profitable business are worse now than in 2009, given the decline in commodities prices and the deteriorating security in areas where the deposits are believed to lie.

Afghanistans deposits of copper and iron ore are trading at about a third of their 2010 prices. Most of the undiscovered deposits of rare-earth minerals are believed to be in Helmand Province, large parts of which are controlled by the Taliban.

There are undoubtedly minerals to be exploited in Afghanistan, which could help provide economic stability to the country in the future, said Daniel F. Feldman, a former special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. But given all the obstacles, it could be many years before mining yields dividends for the Afghan people.

One advantage is that the Trump administration would have a willing partner in the Afghan government. During the Obama administration, President Ghani resisted the rapid development of the mining industry, largely because he worried about the threat of widespread corruption that would come with it.

But as soon as Mr. Trump was elected, Mr. Ghani reversed his position, contacting the Trump team and promoting Afghanistans mineral wealth. He realized that Mr. Trump would be intrigued by the commercial possibilities, officials said.

Mr. Trump has said little publicly about Afghanistan since being elected. But his thinking about what the United States should reap for its military efforts was made clear in another context soon after his inauguration. Speaking to employees of the C.I.A., the president said the United States had erred in withdrawing troops from Iraq without holding on to its oil.

The old expression To the victor belong the spoils, Mr. Trump declared. You remember?

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on July 26, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Mineral Wealth In Afghanistan Tempts Trump.

Read the rest here:
Trump Finds Reason for the US to Remain in Afghanistan: Minerals - New York Times

America's longest war is approaching its 17th year.

As part of our series, Issues That Matter, we took a closer look at the conflict in Afghanistan with Michle Flournoy, who served as undersecretary of defense for policy under President Obama from 2009 to 2012.

"The real issue here is a political strategy," Flournoy told "CBS This Morning" Tuesday. Flournoy is also the co-founder and CEO of the Center for a New American Security.

The war in Afghanistan was launched on October 7, 2001 in response to the September 11 attacks.

"I think first of all, the Taliban has proven to be a very resilient insurgency. They have support from Pakistan, they have support from outside countries. We've had an Afghan government that's been very weak and really plagued by corruption. And we, too, have made mistakes," Flournoy said.

Flournoy pointed to the years from 2003 to 2009 when she says the U.S. focus was largely switched to Iraq.

"When President Obama came in and launched the surge [of U.S. troops in Afghanistan] in 2009, that was important to regaining momentum, but he also announced that that surge would only last a short while -- about less than two years -- and so the Taliban had the signal, you know, we can just wait this out," Flournoy said.

Defense Secretary James Mattis told a Senate committee last month the United States is not winning the war. Flournoy doesn't disagree.

"It's really a stalemate at this point. The good news is that the Afghan forces are in the lead and with our support they continue to hold their own, but they do need our continued support," Flournoy said.

Play Video

U.S. Marines are returning to Afghanistan to fight for territory they once held. About 350 marines died in Helmand Province fighting against the ...

"The real issue here is a political strategy. How do we use that leverage of additional troops supporting the Afghans to actually get the Taliban to the negotiating table. Nobody's gonna win this on the battlefield."

Asked how much territory the Taliban controls now compared to 9/11, Flournoy said, "It controls more now than when we first started the war."

"We have evidence that Russia's proving small arms to the Taliban. Also Iran. So we have this problem of outside support," Flournoy said.

She said the countries providing support are "hedging their bets" in case the Taliban wins, but it also provides them a chance to "poke the United States."

The Trump administration is reviewing U.S. policy on Afghanistan and in comments last week, the president said, "I want to find out why we've been there for 17 years."

What does Flournoy think officials should consider? "What I think we want to see coming out of the Trump administration is a very clear statement of commitment. Look, we have to remember, why are we there? We are there because we don't want Afghanistan to once again become a safe haven for terrorists that could strike the United States," Flournoy said. "The last thing we want is for ISIS to pick up and move from Syria to Afghanistan because we're not pushing back hard enough."

Asked what Trump should do, Flournoy said, "I think the most important thing beyond the troop numbers is a political strategy -- you have to have a broader strategy into which the military portion fits. You have to have a way to get the Taliban to the table."

"The U.S. has to signal a long-term commitment to Afghanistan as a partner for fighting terrorism in the region. If there's any waffling, any sense that we're not fully committed the Taliban will continue to wait us out," Flournoy said.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Originally posted here:
Michle Flournoy on Afghanistan: "Nobody's gonna win this on the ... - CBS News

US generals first suggested they were concerned the Russian government was seeking to arm the Afghan insurgents back in April, but images from the battlefield here corroborating these claims have been hard to come by.

These two videos show sniper rifles, Kalashnikov variants and heavy machine guns that weapons experts say are stripped of any means of identifying their origin.

Two separate sets of Taliban, one in the north and another in the west, claim to be in possession of the weapons, which they say were originally supplied by Russian government sources. One splinter group of Taliban near Herat say they obtained the guns after defeating a mainstream rival group of Taliban. Another group say they got the weapons for free across the border with Tajikistan and that they were provided by "the Russians."

The videos don't provide incontrovertible proof of the trade, of which Moscow has categorically denied involvement. Yet they offer some of the first battlefield evidence of a flow of weapons that has the Afghan and American governments deeply concerned about Moscow's intentions here.

"The Russians have said that they maintain contact with the Taliban, we have lots of other reports from other people they are arming the Taliban ... there is no smoke without fire," Afghan government spokesman Sediq Sediqi said. "That's why our intelligence agencies are up to the job to find out what level of support that is to the Taliban."

Another Afghan official said they were sure that trade was happening between Russia and the Taliban.

Russia's Foreign Ministry declined to comment for this article but has previously called claims they are arming the Taliban "utterly false" and said they were made to cover up for the United States' failure in Afghanistan. The Russians talk to the Taliban purely to promote peace talks, they said.

US officials have long voiced concerns about any weapons flow to the terror group. Asked in April whether he would refute the reports Russia was arming the Taliban, the US commander here, Gen. John Nicholson, said: "Oh, no I'm not refuting that... Arming belligerents or legitimizing belligerents who perpetuate attacks ... is not the best way forward."

Gen. Joseph Votel, chief of US Central Command, told a congressional committee in March he believed the Russians were seeking influence in Afghanistan.

"I think it is fair to assume they may be providing some sort of support to (the Taliban) in terms of weapons or other things that may be there," he said.

In one video the Herat group are seen brandishing the guns, which they said were taken from the mainstream Taliban, led by Mullah Haibatullah, after that group attacked them. Eighteen of their rivals were killed in the attack and six were captured, they said.

"These weapons were given to the fighters of Mullah Haibatullah by the Russians via Iran," said their deputy leader, Mullah Abdul Manan Niazi. He went on to repeat the often-heard rationale behind the arming -- which Moscow denies -- that the weapons were supplied to help the Taliban better fight ISIS.

"The Russians are giving them these weapons to fight ISIS in Afghanistan, but they are using them against us too," he said.

The second video was shot nearer Kabul and features a masked Taliban fighter parading arms he says he obtained through the northern province of Kunduz. He said he did not pay for the weapons -- insurgents often pay for guns with opium crops -- and that his group received the guns via the Tajik border.

"These pistols have been brought to us recently," he says. "These are made in Russia, and are very good stuff."

Weapons experts from the Small Arms Survey studied the videos and said there was little in them to directly tie the guns to the Russian state. The weapons were not particularly modern or rare, and even some of the more elaborate additions, like a JGBG M7 scope on one machine gun, were Chinese made and readily available online, they said.

Yet Benjamin King from the Survey said, "the weapons didn't seem to have the manufacturer markings where we would expect them." He said that elsewhere there have been reports of supplying governments and others going to great lengths to remove identification markings from weapons.

"If this is a pattern seen in Afghanistan then it would be noteworthy," he added.

Sediqi, the Afghan government spokesman, said they had put the allegations to Moscow and also received a denial. He added Afghan officials have expressed their concerns about Moscow's contacts with the Taliban, which coalition officials say legitimizes the insurgency.

"The issue of contact with the Taliban with the Russians was something that really concerned us as well," Seddiqi said. "No contact with non-state groups."

More here:
Videos suggest Russian government may be arming Taliban - CNN

An Afghan media watchdog says at least 10 journalists were killed in Afghanistan in the first half of 2017, a 35 percent surge over last year.

The Afghan Journalists' Safety Committee (AJSC), an independent watchdog, said in a new report issued July 25 that the Taliban and the Islamic State (IS) extremist group were responsible for most of the "direct and indirect" attacks on media workers in Afghanistan.

"In the first six months of 2017, 73 cases of violence against journalists were recorded, including 10 cases of killings, 19 beatings, and 12 injured," the report said.

The report said the violence included killing, beating, inflicting injury and humiliation, intimidation, and detention of journalists.

"Insurgent groups in provinces threaten journalists to self-censorship by telling them to either broadcast what they want or shut down their stations," Najib Sharifi, the director of AJSC, told a press conference in Kabul on July 25.

Sharifi said Afghan government security forces or government-affiliated individuals accounted for 46 percent of violence against journalists.

2016 was the deadliest year for journalists in Afghanistan, with at least 13 media workers killed -- 10 by the Taliban according to the AJSC.

Read the original:
Violence Against Journalists Surges In Afghanistan In 2017 - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

He said he was bothered not only because the report exposed waste, but also that it serves as an example of a complacent mode of thinking.

The report is an indication of a frame of mind an attitude that can affect any of us at the Pentagon or across the Department of Defense showing how those of us entrusted with supporting and equipping troops on the battlefield, if we let down our guard, can lose focus on ensuring their safety and lethality against the enemy, Mr. Mattis wrote.

His memo was released before a House Armed Services Committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, where the uniform issue was expected to be discussed.

In 2007, Abdul Rahim Wardak, who was then serving as Afghanistans minister of defense, discovered the camouflage pattern while browsing uniform styles online, the report said. The forest pattern he chose was created and owned by HyperStealth Biotechnology Corporation, a Canadian company that has designed camouflage for the militaries of Jordan, Chile and the United Arab Emirates. The new uniforms also included expensive details, like replacing buttons with zippers.

Cavalier or casually acquiescent decisions to spend taxpayer dollars in an ineffective and wasteful manner are not to recur, Mr. Mattis wrote.

Read this article:
Purchase of Tropical Uniforms for Afghanistan Draws Mattis's Rebuke - New York Times