Mediaboss Marketing

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

US soldiers patrolling in Afghanistan. (Photo: DVIDSHUB)

We are nearing the 16th year of the Afghan War, which began on October 7, 2001, with the US military invasion of the country. The assault was jingoistically dubbed Operation Enduring Freedom. Today, the longest war in US history still has no end in sight.

Alarmingly, according to the New York Times, Defense Secretary James Mattis and National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster are urging President Trump to initiate a new surge of troops. This would add thousands more soldiers to the 8,400 who are still currently serving there, should Trump approve the plan.

In a commentary in Consortium News, James W. Carden writes:

In his 2014 bookRestraint: A New Foundation for US Strategy, [Barry] Posen correctly observes that U.S. objectives in Afghanistan are "probably unachievable." After all, "despite much US and NATO instruction" Afghanistans "military, and police remain poorly trained, inadequately armed, sometimes corrupt, and only intermittently motivated."

What to do? Send in more troops, as per Mattis and McMaster? No: the wisest course of action would be for the U.S. to moderate its goals, which, according to Posen, "means ratcheting down the US counterinsurgency, nation-building project in Afghanistan at the earliest possible time."

As the latest iteration of the counterinsurgency debate kicks off this week, the time to consider serious alternatives to Americas current (and failed) strategy in Afghanistan is now.

In a May 6 column in Politico, journalist Douglas Wissing -- who was embedded in Afghanistan three times -- observes:

Afghanistan today remains the largest U.S. military foreign engagement. From the peak of about 100,000 boots on the ground during the Obama-era surge, there are still almost 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus up to 26,000 highly paid contractors for the Department of Defense and other agencies. Each soldier costs about a million dollars a year. Economists estimate the Afghan war has already cost U.S. taxpayers around a trillion dollars. For the 2017 fiscal year, U.S. military and State Department operations in Afghanistan are costing about $50 billionalmost a billion dollars a week. (As a reference, the initial budget request for operations against ISIS in Syria was only $5 billion.)

Of course, that's the financial cost. The cost in lives and casualties is grim. The Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University estimates:

About 104,000 people have been killed in the Afghanistan war since 2001. More than 31,000 of those killed have been civilians. An additional 41,000 civilians have been injured since 2001.

These are conservative estimates. There are likely to be countless unrecovered bodies, and record-keeping is difficult in a largely rural country. Recent grisly deaths -- including those resulting from the US dropping the most powerful non-nuclear bomb on a suspected ISIS site, as well as a terrorist attack in downtown Kabul -- indicate that the nightmare of death in Afghanistan will not end anytime soon. The whole nation remains an arid and dusty killing field, pitting the Taliban and allied forces against each other in an interminable war in which civilians and combatants are often indistinguishable.

In addition, as of this month, there have been more than 2,200 US military deaths and 20,000 service men and women wounded in action, according to US Department of Defense figures. What does one tell a family who loses a child in Afghanistan? What are these soldiers dying "for"? Can anyone in the White House or Pentagon articulate the current US mission in Afghanistan? Is one of their motivations for still being there a Vietnam War-era notion that the most powerful military force in the world can't afford the "shame" of losing a war?

The New York times article ends with this foreboding warning:

Still, Mr. Trumps heavy reliance on military commanders risks a repeat of what some critics viewed as a weakness of the Obama administrations troop debate...: its overemphasis on a military solution.

"This whole decision is being seen too narrowly, through a military prism," said Daniel F. Feldman, who served as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan under Mr. Obama. "It has to be seen in a more integrated way. It requires a more aggressive diplomatic component."

The original US invasion of Afghanistan was supposedly meant to punish the Taliban rulers for harboring al-Qaeda prior to 9/11, and to precipitate regime change. What is the goal now that the war is entering its second decade?

Douglas Wissing cogently writes in his Politico commentary:

There is a truism that generals always fight the last war, but in the case of the unending Afghanistan war, the last one is still this one. It appears the generals want to re-escalate with the same failed 21st-century way of war, which governmental and corporate beneficiaries have perverse incentives to continue. Military, intelligence and development corporations need contracts. And elected officials need campaign contributions from those corporations lobbyists.

Wissing raises the notion that we should look to the military-industrial complex itself for an explanation of the continuing US occupation of Afghanistan. If Trump decides on a new surge to back the Kabul government, just remember that the Pentagon-corporate revolving door will be a large factor in the decision.

Read the rest here:
After Nearly 16 Years in Afghanistan, One More "Surge" Won't End the Bloodshed - Truth-Out

Officials say a truck exploded on one of the busiest streets in the Afghan capital. Video provided by Newsy Newslook

Wounded men lie on their beds in Wazir Akbar Khan Hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan, on May 31, 2017, after a massive explosion rocked a highly secure diplomatic area of Kabul.(Photo: Associated Press)

A group of Arizona State University students is organizing a vigil for the victims of recent attacks they believearen't getting the recognition they deserve: Those killed by recentbombings in Afghanistan.

More than 150 people were killed in multiple explosions in Kabul, thecapital of Afghanistan, in the past week.

"Its absolutely tragic, and what hurts more is you hear these things going on like the Manchester tragedy and bombing in London and you see this outcry. ... It just kind of feels like there is this kind of selective mourning going on," ASU student Fara Arefi said.

"It feels like Afghan blood has become really cheap, because every time it is spilled, people dont seem to care."

She and the Afghan Student Association at ASU are organizing #AFGBleeds, a vigil to mourn those lives lost, on the university's Tempe campus Monday evening.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Afghan President Ashraf Ghanisaid Tuesday thata suicide bomb that exploded in Kabul's diplomatic quarter on May 31killed at least 150 people and injured at least 300,possibly making it one of the deadliest attacks in the country since the American invasion in 2001.

A demonstration at the bomb site on June 2 drew at least 1,000 people and turned violentas protesters threw rocks at police and police shot and killed several protesters, according to TheAssociated Press.

On June 3, multiple explosions killed at least six people who were attending a funeral in Kabul for one of the protesters.

After Ghani's statement Tuesday,The Associated Press reported that a bombkilled at least seven people and wounded eight near a mosque in the city of Herat, which is about 400 miles west of Kabul.

Afghans mourned the loss of family members, friends and colleagues on June 1, 2017, a day after a truck bomb exploded in Kabul.(Photo: The Associated Press)

Arefi, a23-year-old senior majoring in biological sciences,was born in the United States, but her family is from Afghanistan. She has helped organize many interfaith events on campus, recently fundraising for an Islam Awareness Week at ASU.

The vigil, planned from 6 to 7 p.m. Monday at Old Main on the Tempe campus,is open to the public. It will include an opening speech, a moment of silence, speakers from various faith groups, and possibly an open mic where "people from the community can come express their grief and viewpoints," Arefi said.

She will end the event by reciting a spoken-word poem about Afghanistan.

"The point of the vigil is basically to bring awareness and offer those souls a moment of silence, a prayer some peace, hopefully," Arefi said.

READ MORE:

Explosions kill at least 6 attending Kabul funeral

Horrific bombing highlights stalemate in longest U.S. war

Rush-hour bombing near embassies kills 90 in Kabul

Why women wore scarves on World Hijab Day

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2s43Jmw

More:
#AFGBleeds: ASU students to host vigil for Afghanistan bombing victims - AZCentral.com

The Armys top general said Wednesday that he would support additional troops in Afghanistan and a residual force in Iraq, but hesitated on recommending more troops sent to South Korea.

During a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on defense,Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey GrahamArmy chief recommends more troops in Afghanistan, but unsure on Korea Senators press Trump not to return compounds to Russia Senate trying to insert Russia sanctions into popular Iran bill MORE (R-S.C.) asked Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley if he supports increasing the Armys troop presence in Afghanistan as an insurance policy against another 9/11.

Milley said he would support such an increase but would not offer specific numbers as the Trump administration is still deciding whether to send up to 5,000 more troops to add to the 8,400 currently deployed there.

Graham also asked Milley if he would recommend that America leave a residual force in Iraq should Mosul be taken back from the Islamic State. Milley said he would if the government of Iraq will consider that.

But when asked whether more troops are needed in South Korea as threats from North Korea grow, Milley said that was a very difficult question, full of all kinds of nuances. So I can't think of a yes or no.

Milley added that the situation required forward presence, in the region to respond quickly to any issue not necessarily more troops.

The Armys $166.1 billion fiscal year 2018 request funds a total force of 1,018,000, including 476,000 active-duty soldiers.

The service is primarily focused on building combat readiness for that force rather than growing it, Milley told lawmakers.

A hollow force only puts the Army and the nations security at risk, he said. Combat is very unforgiving and it is even more unforgiving on armies that are not manned, trained, equipped and well-led.

He added, however, that if more money became available and we were able to make sure we could maintain the readiness, we do have an additional request which would increase the end strength capacity of the force.

The chief was referring to the Armys nearly $12.7 billion wish list sent to Congress last week, which asks for 17,000 additional troops.

The list of unfunded weapons, equipment, troops, maintenance and development activities that wasnt included in the services budget request asks for $3.1 billion to pay for training, sustaining, housing and equipping the extra troops.

Milley also said he believes the Army should be a force of 540,000 to 550,000, the Army National Guard an end strength of 350,000 to 355,000, and 205,000 to 209,000 soldiers for the Army Reserve.

Originally posted here:
Army chief recommends more troops in Afghanistan, but unsure on Korea - The Hill

New Delhi risks being sidelined in Afghanistan if it maintains its hard line.

By Kabir Taneja for The Diplomat

June 07, 2017

In June 2015, the rich Northern European country of Norway served as the unlikely host to a delegation of Afghan Taliban representatives and officials from the Afghanistan government. Norway has never shied away from attempting to mediate global conflicts. This land of just over 5 million people has done more than most in the name of peace, from mediating between the LTTE and Sri Lankan government to playing a successful role in ending the 50-year war between the Colombian state and the leftist FARC rebels in 2016.

The fact that the Taliban set up an office in Doha in 2013 for talks with not just the Afghan government but international actors as well could be seen as the initial sign that the American-led military campaign to dismantle the Taliban, launched as a reaction to 9/11 in 2003, was coming to an inconclusive conclusion. However, the Talibans Oslo sojourn and the Norways enthusiasm for ending global conflicts produced a convergence of a sort.

The Taliban had developed some confidence in the Norwegians, specifically their diplomat, Alfe Arne Ramslien, whose work to gain the terror groups trust had proven astonishingly successful in 2007. According to a report by The New York Times, the Norwegians even managed a coup, orchestrating a late-night meeting with the then elusive and now deceased Taliban chief, Mullah Mohammed Omar, himself.

Since then we have seen not just the mainstreaming of the Taliban and dialogue processes around the terror group, but the international community and actors also opening dialogue processes with the organization. While the Norwegians have met Taliban representatives in cities such as Oslo, Karachi and Bangkok, the Chinese have hosted an Afghan Taliban delegation led by Qatar office chief Sher Abbas Stanikazi. This visit to Beijing came only days after Chinese, Pakistani and Russian diplomats met in Moscow and called for Taliban leaders be removed from the United Nations sanctions list, and Moscow, perhaps savoring the irony, offered to host peace talks between the Afghanistan government and the Taliban. The U.S., China, Russia and other Western nations are now in the mood to bring the Taliban into Afghan politics. But these maneuvers, initiated after nearly 15 years of Western military efforts, are stepping on the toes of some other vital and influential partners in the Afghan story, most notably, India.

New Delhi has maintained a highly visible marketed stance on terrorism, namely that the concept of good terrorists and bad terrorists is invalid. Indias stakes in Afghanistan are great, as it fears any mainstreaming of the Taliban into the fabric of Afghan politics would give unbridled access to archrival Pakistan, as its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) provides, protects and manages the Taliban from its fortresses in Rawalpindi. However, Indias argument against political acceptance or normalization of the Taliban is in danger of leaving New Delhi isolated.

Last month, the Afghan government made a valuable breakthrough by bringing to a close its long-standing battle with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of Hizb-i-Islami (HIG). Hekmatyar, warlord to some, terrorist to others (as designated by the U.S.-led Coalition) dropped his most prevalent precondition for any peace process with the state, that of a complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghan soil. A disciple of Egyptian Islamic scholar Sayyid Qutbs vision of political Islam via the Muslim Brotherhood, Hekmatyar has been dubbed Butcher of Kabul for single-handedly being responsible for most of the civilian deaths that city saw in the 1990s. His return is no sudden epiphany, but is rather the outcome of political negotiations and deal-making between him and the Afghan government over the past six years.

On his return to Kabul, Hekmatyar called for peace with the Afghan Taliban while speaking at the presidential palace, an area that in years past his forces bombarded mercilessly. He addressed the Taliban as brothers, as he positions himself as a politician, mediator and statesman. Upon his arrival, his engagements also included a host of meetings with foreign diplomats, including a dialogue with Indias Ambassador to Afghanistan, Manpreet Vohra.

The optics of Indias acceptance of Hekmatyar, perhaps at the behest of the Ghani government, are confusing. As Vohra and Hekmatyar sat down for the meet, Indias flag shared the stage with the flag of Hizb-i-Islami and not that of Afghanistan, highlighting the intricacies and grey areas between HIG and the Afghan government that still prevail. More than this, however, the meeting threw the spotlight on Indias hard line on the good terrorist-bad terrorist hypothesis. In preparation for the success of Afghan governments talks with HIG, the UNSC removed Hekmatyar from its sanctions list (although other HIG commanders remain on it) and the U.S. praised this reconciliation.

The security situation in Afghanistan has been deteriorating over the past few months, with more frequent attacks on the Afghan armed forces and the Taliban making territorial gains. It is perhaps the geographical advances and re-establishment of supremacy by the Taliban in parts of the country that has most worried Washington and others, including New Delhi. According to the latest report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), Afghanistan directly controls only 24 percent of the country and influences 36 percent of it. Meanwhile, the Taliban and other insurgents contest, influence or control 40 percent of Afghan territory. Despite the U.S. committing further troops to a war they thought had ended, Kabul does not see military operations as an effective way of diminishing the Taliban, and perhaps no one but the Afghan government now has the experience to make that call.

This leaves India in a bind. As a major influence in Afghanistan with billions of dollars invested in developmental projects, New Delhi has sternly maintained that there is no differentiating between good and bad terrorists. On this basis, India has not officially at least engaged in negotiations with the Taliban or approached the groups Doha office. However, not viewing Hekmatyar as a terrorist on the basis of the Kabul-led reconciliation begs the question: Should India now also look at participating in multilateral (or even bilateral) dialogues with the Taliban? This would mean softening its line on the good and bad terrorist view and being open to such groups political validity. True, a change now on this front could also have domestic political implications for India. Nonetheless, if New Delhi continues its policy of refusing to see any political validity in the Afghan Taliban, it could also be sidelined from the political jigsaw puzzle and lose the position it has spent years building via goodwill and development. Even Hekmatyar during his meeting with Vohra highlighted Indias developmental work, thanking India for the Salma Dam in Herat province.

Indias approach in Afghanistan has been centered on developmental projects and aid; however, its understanding of the political landscape may be in need of drastic shift. While Rawalpindis influence on the Taliban and the Quetta shura is undeniable, New Delhi needs to revisit its Afghanistan policy and position it in a long-term frame, one attuned to the changing dynamics. If that means opening official channels with the Taliban, then such an idea should be given space for deliberations.

Kabir Taneja is an Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.

Originally posted here:
How Afghanistan Is Challenging India's 'Good Terrorist Bad Terrorist' Stand - The Diplomat

Trump Targets Contraceptive Coverage ; The Heavy Price of Student Debt ...and More Picks

PICKS are stories from many sources, selected by our editors or recommended by our readers because they are important, surprising, troubling, enlightening, inspiring, or amusing. They appear on our site and in our daily newsletter. Please send suggested articles, videos, podcasts, etc. to picks@whowhatwhy.org.

Many news organizations, including The Washington Post, have phased out the role of ombudsman or public editor, an independent voice that serves as a liaison between readers and the newsroom. Add the New York Times to that list.

Under a draft rule from the Trump Administration, your employer will be allowed to deny contraceptive coverage by claiming a religious or moral objection. According to the ACLU, the rule is shameful in its hypocrisy, hurts religious liberty, encourages discrimination and will not reduce litigation as suggested.

The country, Erik Prince wrote, should be run by an American viceroy who would lead all U.S. government and coalition efforts including command, budget, policy, promotion, and contracting and report directly to the president.

The research is in: Becoming a debt slave before youre allowed to buy beer and before your brain is fully formed is not healthy for you.

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

Trump Targets Contraceptive Coverage ; The Heavy Price of Student Debt and More Picks for 6/7

Britain to Revamp Security Apparatus ; Californias Cost Saving Medicare for All Plan and More Picks for 6/6

Dem Quits Iowa Race Over Death Threats ; How Wall Street Makes Air Travel Uncomfortable and More Picks for 6/5

Trump to Keep US Embassy in Tel Aviv (For Now) ; The Cost of Climate Change for Millennials and More Picks for 6/2

UK Believes Manchester Bomber Acted Alone ; Assange to Host Hannitys Radio Show? and More Picks for 6/1

See more here:
'American Viceroy' in Afghanistan? - WhoWhatWhy / RealNewsProject (blog)