Mediaboss Marketing

On April 13, the United States dropped its biggest non-nuclear bomb in eastern Afghanistan on an "Islamic State" (IS) target. The so-called '"mother of all bombs" (MOAB) killed at least 96 IS fighters, according to Afghan officials. Surprisingly, 13 of them were from India.

IS in Afghanistan is known to have recruited hundreds of local fighters as well as militants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Central and Southeast Asia, but an active involvement of Indian jihadists in IS' Afghanistan operations is not well documented.

In an interview with DW, Michael Kugelman, a South Asia expert at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, saysthere's good reason to believe there could be Indian extremists in Afghanistan.

DW: Not much is known about the activities of Indian militants in Afghanistan. What can you tell us about it?

Michael Kugelman: I think the broader question is why Afghanistan is becoming so attractive to extremists on the whole. Over the last few years there has been an influx of extremists from around the broader region - the militant network in Afghanistan is much more diverse and international than merely the Taliban and al Qaeda. Clearly what appeals to extremists about Afghanistan is its growing swath of lawless and hard-to-navigate territory, which provides ideal conditions for sanctuaries. These are conditions that appeal to extremists of all types, whether we're talking about Indian militants, jihadists from Central Asia, or Arab fighters from the Middle East.

This is one of the few cases, if not the first, in which Indian extremists have been killed in Afghanistan. Are Indian militants active across Afghanistan?

There's reason to believe that al Qaeda, and particularly AQIS - al Qaeda's South Asian regional affiliate - could feature some Indian nationals. Let's not forget that the supreme leader of AQIS is widely believed to be an Indian. Al Qaeda, despite claims to the contrary, remains a serious threat in Afghanistan and the surrounding region.

Also, based on recent history, there's good reason to believe there could be Indian extremists in Afghanistan. Laskhar-e-Taiba (LeT) has had a presence in Afghanistan, and for quite some time LeT partnered closely with Indian Mujahideen, an al Qaeda-aligned Indian terror group, which has since been decimated.

Kugelman: 'There's good reason to believe there could be Indian extremists in Afghanistan'

The bottom line is that given the types of terror groups that have operated in Afghanistan, both past and present, there's reason to believe that there could be some Indians among them.

Are Indian PM Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalistic policies pushing some Indian Muslims towardextremist groups in Afghanistan?

It's true that Indian Muslims have faced new and growing challenges of discrimination and marginalization in India, though it's doubtful this has had a radicalizing effect and led some to join IS. I think it's highly unlikely that radicalized young Indian Muslims are gravitating to IS en masse, though one can't discount the possibility that if current conditions remain in place, you may eventually have this dynamic play out, albeit on a modest scale. For all the challenges and problems they face, Indian Muslims, on the whole, are treated better than religious minorities are in many other countries.

The Afghan Ministry of Defense also confirmed that Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Philippine nationals were among those killed in the MOAB attack. Is Afghanistan becoming a favorite destination for jihadists willing to join IS ranks?

For quite some time in previous years, when we thought of top destinations for global terrorists, Pakistan was at the top of the list. But aggressive counterterrorism operations by the Pakistani army in the tribal areas - long South Asia's ground zero for militant safe havens - have shifted the calculus. First, counterterrorism operations have pushed many Pakistan-based terrorists across the border into Afghanistan. Second, these operations have prompted other terrorists from the region and beyond to view Afghanistan as a more attractive destination because the law and order situation is so much worse there.

In effect, Islamist extremists far and wide are starting to see Afghanistan as a more coveted address than Pakistan because the real estate is simply more attractive and safe havens are so much easier to establish.

How do you analyze the future of IS in Afghanistan?

I think that IS'star is falling in Afghanistan. Several years ago it was developing a strong profile, at a time when IS was going on the offensive around the world by staging attacks in so many places and enjoying a strong grip on its Middle East-based "caliphate." But over the last year, as IS has lost much of its territory in the Middle East, the US has worked closely with Afghanistan to degrade the organization's infrastructure and capacities in Afghanistan, mainly through airstrikes. Also, IS has not endeared itself to anyone with its particularly brutal tactics in eastern Afghanistan, making the Taliban look like a modest force in the eyes of local communities.

I am not saying IS is on life support in Afghanistan, but it's certainly struggling in a big way. The Taliban have always been the top militant threat in Afghanistan, and as IS continues to get beaten down there, the strength of the Taliban will be amplified even more.

Michael Kugelman is a senior associate for South and Southeast Asia at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars.

The interview was conducted by Masood Saifullah.

Read more:
How active are Indian jihadists in Afghanistan? | Asia | DW.COM ... - Deutsche Welle

Afghanistans President Ashraf Ghani really doesnt want to talk about torture. He made that clear this month when, in a scene that could have been scripted for U.S. President Donald Trump, he tried to shut down veteran Tolo news reporter Sharif Amiry for daring to ask what the Afghan government was doing about allegations that first Vice President Dostum had abducted, tortured and sexually assaulted a rival. But Ghanis refusal to answer wont make those concerns go away. And it begs an even more awkward question: Is his administration really incapable of enforcing the rule of law in even such a blatant case of alleged torture by one of its own top officials?

It has been four months since politician Ahmad Ishchi accused Dostum of abducting him and imprisoning him in Dostums stronghold in Shiberghan, where guards allegedly beat him and raped him with a rifle barrel.

At the time, Ghani assured Western diplomats that he would see justice done. In January, the attorney general ordered the arrest of nine of Dostums guards, but when Dostum refused to hand them over, the attorney general settled for interviewing seven of them in Dostums compound in Kabul. Today, the case remains stalled, with both Dostum and his bodyguards waiting out political negotiations over what has become not only a test case for Ghanis ability to ensure justice, but a clear example of the power strongmen wield over Afghanistans future.

Dostum, however, is only part of the sordid picture of impunity for torture in Afghanistan.

In January 2015, President Ghani wrote to Human Rights Watch in response to our report on widespread impunity for Afghan security force officials responsible for torture, extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances. In Ghanis words, the Afghan government would not tolerate torture, and he was committed to addressing allegations of torture. Further evidence of Ghanis personal abhorrence for torture emerged when he read the US Senate torture report. Ghani reportedly demanded details on the number of Afghans tortured at US black sites, and condemned the methods used as shocking and inhumane. When the UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) released its February 2015 report showing that one-third of Afghan detainees had been tortured, Ghani announced a national action plan aimed at ending torture.

That was two years ago. Fast forward to now.

Draft legislation on torture is finally emerging after years of political and bureaucratic battles, but torture is on the rise. While in a few cases police have been dismissed or relocated following investigations, in places were torture is used systematically, the Afghan government has done nothing to hold the most egregious offenders accountable. Afghanistans strongmen, and the forces loyal to them, remain above the law. These include not only Dostum, but also Police Chief Raziq of Kandahar, among others. Human Rights Watch has documented cases of torture by other prominent political figures, including Asadullah Khalid, former head of the National Directorate of Security.

When I was in Kabul two weeks ago, a senior administration official tried to explain away the governments failure to show any genuine improvements in combatting torture. He instead fell back on excuses for inaction, such as that the victims lie, the research methodology used to document torture is flawed, the Taliban fabricate stories of torture by government forces. But in truth, the Ghani administration has failed to curb torture because those implicated in such crimes wield sufficient power to ensure they are never prosecuted and are free to continue to commit such abuses without any fear of accountability.

Afghanistan faces its first review in 20 years under the UN Convention Against Torture at a session in Geneva next week. The Afghan government delegation is expected to dispute evidence that UNAMA and human rights organizations, including the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, have provided. But the fact remains that those who torture get away with it. When he read the US Senate torture report, President Ghani rightly observed that: When a person is tortured in an inhumane way, the reaction will be inhumane. There can be no justification for these kinds of actions and inhumane torture in todays world. He called it a vicious cycleprophetic words, perhaps, but a cycle he can break only by acknowledging what human rights investigators have said: Torture continues because theres no real deterrent. Impunity for the use of torture means that torture will continue.

See original here:
Afghanistan's Entrenched Systemic Torture - Huffington Post

Abby Huntsman traveled to Washington for an up-close look at a day in the life of Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), who continues to serve after losing both of his legs in Afghanistan.

Mast, who was elected to the House of Representatives last November, served as a U.S. Army bomb technician and was severely injured in an IED explosion in Sept. 2010.

The 36-year-old veteran sat down with Huntsman and to discuss the attack and why he decided to continue his service by running for Congress.

Mast was on a team clearing explosive devices for Army Rangers in southern Afghanistan when they came to a river that he suspected was mined by the enemy.

The team stopped, but one soldier fell in the waterway. He moved to help pull the soldier out, but stepped on an explosive device.

He said he remembers being thrown five to 10 feet away in a cloud of dust and hearing urgent messages on the radio as his fellow soldiers called for medical help.

Mast told Huntsman that he woke up at a hospital in Washington, D.C. to see that he had lost his legs.

Luckily, a friend had tracked him down, contacted his wife, gotten a family photograph and taped it to Mast's hospital gurney.

"He did it so that the first thing I would ever see would be my wife and my son looking back at me," Mast said.

Mast said that he also received support and inspiration from his father.

"He said, 'Brian, you can't let this keep you down. You've got to find a way to pull yourself up, get out there and get back to work,'" Mast said.

He revealed that helped him realize that he still had a purpose in life and he could still contribute on a different battlefield: Congress.

He told Huntsman that the job can be difficult and arduous, but it's all worth it to continue serving the American people.

"When you accomplish something great, when you go out there and do something great for the people back home, for the country, for freedom, for standing up for the Constitution, for fiscal responsibility, you've accomplished something good," Mast said. "And it makes every sacrifice worth it."

Watch the full inspiring story above and don't miss Abby on Saturday and Sunday mornings on "Fox & Friends Weekend."

Trump Signs 'Buy American' Order: 'It's America First, You Better Believe It'

De Blasio Tweets His Tax Returns: 'See, President Trump? It's Not That Hard'

Bolton: Nuclear Weapons Program Is North Korea's 'Ace in the Hole'

Judge Nap: After Obama, It's 'Newsworthy' When Feds Enforce Immigration Law

See more here:
The Story of How a Double Amputee Veteran Went From Afghanistan to Congress - Fox News Insider

As expected, the third round of talks under the Russian-sponsored initiative to find an amicable solution to the conflict in Afghanistan failed to make any headway. However, this time the Central Asian States also attended the moot along with China, Pakistan, Iran, India and Afghanistan.

The US, which was invited by Russia to be a part of the dialogue, declined the offer, saying that the motives of the talks were not clear. Afghanistan has also been expressing its weariness about Russias attempts to woo the Taliban. The Taliban, who had earlier welcomed the Russian move, reportedly threw a spanner in the works by withdrawing their support to the dialogue.

The spokesman of the Taliban told Voice of America that: We cannot call these negotiationsa dialogue for the restoration of peace in Afghanistan. This meeting stems from [the] political agendas of the countries who are organising it. This hasnothing to do with us, nor do we support it.

With the Taliban having withdrawn their support, Afghanistan looking askance at the initiative and the US abstaining to attend, the Russian initiative, for all practical purposes, seems to have come to a naught. Its significance lies only in the fact that they gathered, discussed and dispersed.

At the end of the talks, the Russian ministry of foreign affairs issued a statement. It stated: The parties had a frank and thorough exchange of views on the current political and military situation in Afghanistan as well as on its prospects and expressed common concern over growing terrorist activities in the country, leading to rising tensions and increasing violence which adds to the predicament of the Afghan people.

The meetings participants stressed that there was no military solution to the Afghan crisis while the only way to resolve it was by ensuring a national reconciliation using political methods in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions. The parties reiterated their support for the efforts being made by the Kabul government and the countrys social and political circles which are aimed at bringing peace to Afghanistan.

The foregoing statement by the Russian foreign ministry is an attempt to conceal the embarrassment that Russia had to face as a result of the withdrawal of support to the talks by the Taliban and the reservations of Afghanistan and the US about the motives behind the effort. Pakistan has, all along, rightly maintained that the participation of the US was absolutely imperative in any initiative related to promoting peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan, as it was the biggest stakeholder in the issue.

The view held by Pakistan has great merit. The US since its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 has invested astronomical amounts of dollars and has lost hundreds of their soldiers. It has failed to end the insurgency by the Taliban who remain a potent threat to the Afghan government installed and propped up by the US. It is now in the process of getting out of Afghanistan and wants to see an end to the conflict in that country before leaving. However, it will not abandon the Afghan government when the situation is not under its control. Instead, it wants to make sure that Afghanistan does not relapse into factional fighting during the Taliban regime. The US must, therefore, be part of any effort to end conflict in Afghanistan.

But the fact remains that the regional countries like China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran also have a huge stake in peace in Afghanistan. The best way to move forward will be if all the stakeholders to get together and use their collective wisdom to find a way out of the conundrum. This is, however, easier said than done. The situation is complicated and has made even worse by the US-Russia tiff over the US bombing of an airbase in Syria.

The possibility of these two powers coming together in the foreseeable future to resolve the Afghan conflict appears to be remote. Another factor which has reduced the prospects of talks on Afghanistan is the Talibans position that they will not participate in any dialogue before the foreign troops leave the country.

How can Russian even promote intra-Afghan dialogue without Afghanistan and the US agreeing to the proposition? In fact, under the prevailing situation, the solution to the Afghanistan conundrum lies in the hands of the US administration and the Taliban. How to bring these two stakeholders to an agreement on resolving the Afghan conflict remains a million dollars question.

The recent developments suggest that the US will probably get tough under the Trump administration and pursue an aggressive policy on Afghanistan. The bombing of an airbase in Syria, the dropping of the largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan and a tough stance against North Korea point towards to the things that have yet to come.

The unannounced dash to Pakistan by the US National Security Advisor Lt Gen HR McMaster in the backdrop of the foregoing developments is also of great significance. He has met the prime minister, the adviser to the PM on foreign affairs and the COAS. According to a statement issued by the Prime Minister House, the US security adviser assured the prime minister that the new administration was committed to strengthening bilateral relations and working with Pakistan to achieve peace and stability in Afghanistan and in South Asian.

A day earlier, while speaking to Tolo News in Afghanistan, he said: The best way for the Pakistani leaders to pursue their interest in Afghanistan and elsewhere is through diplomacy and not through the use of proxies that engage in violence.

The prime minister reportedly briefed the general about the efforts that Pakistan has made in combating terrorism and the steps taken to improve the security situation and maintain a peaceful neighbourhood. He also spoke about the countrys resolve to work with the international community to find an amicable solution to the Afghan problem.

In addition, the prime minister expressed Pakistans strong desire to work with the US to promote peace and security in the region and highlighted the desirability of the US playing a role in resolving the Kashmir issue. The statement did not say whether there was any change in his alleged view about Pakistan using proxies or not.

The US recently had indicated the possibility of it playing a role in defusing tensions between Pakistan and India before anything happened. For that to happen, Pakistan will have to focus more on winning the confidence of the US regarding its indiscriminate action against all terrorists rather than pursuing its objectives through proxies, as alleged by the US.

The writer is a freelance contributor. Email: [emailprotected]

Read the original post:
Talks on Afghanistan - The News International

Last week, the United States dropped what the military is calling the mother of all bombs on ISIS targets in Afghanistan.

We caught up with Sen. Susan Collins Wednesday who says the military response was appropriate.

It appears that very large bomb that was dropped in Afghanistan did take out a whole network of caves that Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists were using to disrupt the government in Afghanistan, to terrorize the population, and to put our remaining troops in jeopardy, she said.

We also spoke to Sen. King, who is delivering a lecture at Colby College Wednesday on U.S. foreign policy.

Sen. King told us, No war has ever been won by air power alone. Weve got to be careful that we cant rely on that because one of the problems is collateral damage. If you kill five terrorists, but twenty civilians, you may have created another 20 or 30 terrorists. So thats a calculation that we really have to make. We cant not defend our vital interests, but we also have to be understanding what the long term implications are in terms of our ability to deal with terrorism, to deal with rogue states like Iran and like North Korea.

The senator says he has not yet received a full intelligence report of what was achieved with the recent bombing in Afghanistan.

Follow this link:
Senators Collins and King Comment on Bombing Afghanistan - WABI