Mediaboss Marketing

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)

Indian Ambassador Manpreet Vohra says some countries in the region are sabotaging attempts at peace.

Hinting indirectly at Pakistan, the Indian ambassador in Kabul, Manpreet Vohra, said some countries in the region have damaged all peace efforts and are following destructive policies. Sadly, in our immediate neighborhood, there are some who deliberately sabotage all attempts for peace and greater regional cooperation and connectivity, he said. India hopes that better sense will prevail on them one day and their self-destructive policies will change. Marking the 70th Independence Day of India at the Indian Embassy in Kabul, the ambassador said New Delhi will stand beside Afghans in the fight against terrorism. We champion Afghanistans cause and stand with it shoulder to shoulder as it faces serious challenges and strives to build a peaceful, secure and prosperous nation, he stated. At the same event, Second Vice President Mohammad Sarwar Danish said a number of countries in the region were trying to change their security centric policies to an economic centric policy and to regional cooperation. Though Afghanistan is living in an imposed war and is on the frontline of the fight against insurgency and terrorism, and our civilians and forces are being sacrificed in barbaric terrorist attacks every day ... the policy of the Afghan government is based on an economic-centric policy not security-centric, he said.

Regional countries particularly our neighbors should pay attention to this important matter that our politics and policy should not be ordered as security-centric. India has invested $2.5 billion USD in infrastructure in Afghanistan and has pledged an additional one billion dollars in aid.

See more here:
Terrorist Activities In Afghanistan A Threat To India: Envoy - TOLOnews

The CEO of the National Unity Government (NUG) Abdullah Abdullah visited Minsk, the capital of Belarus, on Tuesday while on an official trip and met with Andrei Vladimirovich Kobyakov, the Belarusian Prime Minister.

Abdullah will hold talks with Kobyakov and it is expected that a package of international agreements will be signed, including one on industrial cooperation and the simplification of visa formalities.

Abdullah also met with Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus, and discussed bilateral economic and trade opportunities.

He visited Belarusian Great Patriotic War Museum in Minsk on Wednesday and laid a wreath at the Monument of Victory.

He also visited the Minsk car, construction and electricity companies with the Afghan delegation where officials from the motor manufacturer promised to cooperate with Afghanistan.

In the meantime, the CEO's office in a statement said that Officials of Belarus and Afghanistan will sign agreements over economic, business, legislation and justice.

The commodity exchange value between Belarus and Afghanistan totaled more than $25 million USD in 2016, which is 60 percent more than in 2015, according to Belarusian media reports.

We are to sign two documents on activation of industrial cooperation and simplification of visa regime. In my opinion it will contribute to business communication,Jawed Faisal, a spokesman for Abdullah, told TOLOnews.

This is the first official visit to Belarus in the history of bilateral relations between Minsk and Kabul.

Read more:
Belarus, Afghanistan Forge New Strategy for Cooperation - TOLOnews

British Royal Marines commandos in Afghanistan. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

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 September 11, 2001.

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

Similarly, while the Talibans ouster also forced Al Qaedainto exile in Pakistan and elsewhere, the terror groupnonetheless continued and expanded its terrorist activities. In Iraq and Syria, Al Qaeda 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 that the war had gone on too long and that 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 SenatorGeorge Aiken, who said we should win and get out, Lowensteinsaid that he couldnt understand Nixons strategy of lose and stay in.

August 16, 2017 12:08 pm

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.

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 preventing a Taliban victory in Afghanistan that would enable the Pakistani Taliban or other terrorist groups to seize control in Islamabad. Not only would such a takeover make all of 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 armis 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 before9/11. Accordingly, abandoning the field in Afghanistan is simply not a tenable strategy.

On the other hand, 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, 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 that the US hasfollowed since the initial assault on the Taliban. Other alternatives appear available and should be seriously considered, including possibly larger USmilitary commitments of the right sort.

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

Pakistan a nuclear weapons state thathas been politically unstable since British Indias 1947 partition, and is increasingly under Chinese influence because of the hostility with Indiais 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 USmilitary 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 US 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 US permanent representative to the United Nations and, previously, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

This article was originally published by the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

Read more from the original source:
Time Is Ticking for Trump in Afghanistan - Algemeiner