Mediaboss Marketing

Director General (DG) Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Major General Asif Ghafoor in an interview with a private TV channel on Tuesday called for Afghanistan to abandon its 'anti-Pakistan lens' and devise policies with Pakistan through an 'Afghan lens'.

Ghafoor's statements come as Pakistan steps up a crackdown against militancy through Operation Raddul Fasaad after a recent surge in terror attacks across the country, with top officials talking tough on Afghanistan.

Following the attacks, the Foreign Office lodged a protest with Kabul over the use of Afghan soil for launching terror attacks in Pakistan. The government also shut down border crossings with Afghanistan and troops pounded 'terrorist targets' near the border.

As the crackdown intensifies, politicians and rights organisations have raised concerns about the apparent racial profiling of Pakhtuns in Pakistan by authorities, which the government denies is the case.

Speaking to 92HD, DG ISPR Asif Ghafoor stressed the importance of political engagement between Pakistan and Afghanistan, saying, "Even if one claims such things [terror attacks] are being planned in Afghanistan, it doesn't mean that all of Afghanistan wants to engage in such activities. They themselves are suffering through this issue [terrorism] and have made huge sacrifices themselves."

"One can't delink terrorism from foreign countries," Ghafoor said. "Afghanistan has been a battleground for various powers."

"First and foremost, Afghanistan has to think about what is best for itself, and for them it is best that they view their security situation and ties with Pakistan through an 'Afghan lens', not an 'anti-Pakistan lens'," he said.

"Until Afghanistan sees its relationship with Pakistan through the lens of its own interest, these things will continue happening," the DG ISPR contended.

The army's spokesman said military-level engagement between both countries is ongoing, as suggested by Army Chief Gen Qamar Bajwa. "That engagement will proceed positively," Ghafoor said. "The Pak-Afghan border mechanism needs improvement and we are hopeful it will improve in the coming days."

However, he said, border closure is not an indefinite measure. "There are some things Afghanistan should be doing before the border reopens that can be decided through shared discussions," he said. "So that when the border reopens, no one from our side should be able to go there and no one from their side should be able to come here for terrorism."

Ghafoor denied that recent attacks represented a 'resurgence' in terror in Pakistan. "Resurgence is a strong word to use," he stated.

Operation Raddul Fasaad seeks to consolidate gains made during previous military operations, he said. "When we cleared these [northern] areas, the remaining terrorists fled to the vacuum near the Pak-Afghan border created by an absence of troops."

"They went there, regrouped and realigned, and they successfully hired facilitators and sympathisers in different pockets along the mainland in Pakistan. But it doesn't mean there is a resurgence of terrorism. They have the capabilities and have done such things. Their leadership claims they did so while physically sitting in Afghanistan. They have the full support of enemy powers, whether [Indian spy agency] Research and Analysis Wing or others it can't happen without their support," he asserted.

The military, through Operation Raddul Fasaad, seeks to fracture this connectivity between terrorists and their facilitators, Ghafoor explained.

When questioned about the veracity of claims that Pakhtuns in Punjab are being targeted in the crackdown, Ghafoor denied that any party, province or sect has been specifically targeted.

On Monday, an HRCP press release had claimed that administrative officials in some Punjab districts had issued formal or informal orders "asking the population to keep an eye on suspicious individuals who look like Pashtuns or are from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and to report any suspicious activity by them."

The statements prompted Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah to issue a statement earlier today, saying that Pakhtuns have the complete right to reside in Punjab, and the allegations being raised in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Sindh of their victimisation were only attempts to "spread hatred".

"We are all Pakistanis," Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor said. "Provinces come later. Terrorism has no religion, country, province or sect... The operation targets are determined after receiving proof of involvement in terrorism and it is not for any specific province. All arrests made have been across the board," the DG ISPR claimed.

When asked if any foreign powers were involved in this 'conspiracy', Ghafoor replied, "For sure, there must be."

"Whoever wants to see Pakistan unstable will observe faultlines and they will exploit them."

Original post:
Afghanistan needs to abandon 'anti-Pakistan lens': DG ISPR - DAWN.com

Andrew J. Bacevich Published 2:42 p.m. ET Feb. 26, 2017 | Updated 19 hours ago

U.S. troops inspect the site of a suicide attack in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 2014.(Photo: Massoud Hossaini, AP)

Will sending a few thousand additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan spell the difference between victory and defeat in what has become the longest war in all of U.S. history?Not likely.

To understand why, recall what the United States has been doing in that beleaguered country since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. At the cost of more than $1 trillion, 3,500 coalition troops killed and thousands more wounded, the United States and its allies have spent more than 15 years trying to create in Kabul a government commanding the allegiance of the Afghan people and security forces capable of maintaining internal security.

That effort has not succeeded. Today, the Taliban not only persists but controls more territory than at any time since 2001. U.S. efforts to foster create a viable Afghan economy have achieved meager results.

Although Afghanistan has received more American aid than the United States expended to rebuild Western Europe after World War II via the Marshall Plan, the country today has achieved distinction in only two categories: corruption, where it ranks among the worlds worst, and heroin production, which has reached an all-time high.

Pretending that a few thousand troops will turn things around in Afghanistan is like expecting a few hundred additional cops to eliminate gang violence in a city like Chicago. Its an argument that ignores root causes. Rather than a serious policy proposal, its a Band-Aid.

In Afghanistan, what's the plan?: Our view

The root causes of Afghan dysfunction are vast and deep. They predate the ongoing war itself. If the security and well-being of the United States do require it to fix the problems afflicting Afghanistan, then doing so is likely to require a few hundred thousand troops. To finish the job, those troops will have to stay a few decades. Along the way, they will burn through trillions of additional taxpayer dollars.

If U.S. policymakers shrink from making any such commitment as well they might perhaps its time to ask a more fundamental question: Is it not possible that Afghans are better able than we are to solve their own problems?

Andrew J. Bacevich is author of Americas War for the Greater Middle East, which is just out in paperback.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2msHqAZ

Continued here:
Enough already for Afghanistan: Opposing view - USA TODAY

The Trump administration is considering whether to plunge more resources and troops into the United States longest war Afghanistan as some of the presidents top generals are calling for. The issue pits President Trumps commitment to end nation-building against his promise to stamp out terrorism in a conflict where a clear U.S. strategy is sorely lacking.

After more than 15 years of U.S. fighting, the war is at a crossroads. The Afghan national security forces are on their heels. The government is asking the United States and its NATO partners to help it go on offense against the Taliban, which has been taking territory with the help of Pakistan, Iran and Russia. The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, has publicly testified that he wants a few thousand more troops there. He also says there is a need for a more holistic review of the mission.

As Defense Secretary Jim Mattis prepares a formal recommendation to the White House, debate has renewed in Washington on whether the United States is throwing good money after bad in Afghanistan. But as far as the Afghan government is concerned, theres really no safe alternative.

The Taliban, while they may not be directly planning direct attacks on U.S. territory, they provide the environment for all kinds of terrorist groups to operate, Hamdullah Mohib, Afghanistans ambassador to Washington, told me. If we allow any terrorist group to succeed, it doesnt matter what terrorist group, it emboldens all of them.

Theres an immediate need for equipment and personnel, he said, before the start of the summer fighting season, which is sure to be bloody. If thousands more U.S. troops arrive, they would serve in an advise-and-training role, not direct combat. But the idea is to embed them in Afghan units, placing them closer to the fighting.

The Afghan government is also asking for helicopters, special forces gear and intelligence assistance to fill urgent shortfalls. For example, the Afghan militarys fleet of Russian helicopters is mostly grounded, in part because of a lack of spare parts as a result of U.S. sanctions against Russia.

Mohib is optimistic that Trumps team is open to the idea of committing more resources to Afghanistan.

The hesitation that existed in the previous administration is gone, Mohib said. The hesitation was that the U.S. didnt have a good partner to work with in the Afghan government.

Republican leaders in Congress are cautiously supportive of an Afghanistan troop increase they would be responsible to fund. But they want to make sure the Trump administration doesnt repeat what they see as President Barack Obamas mistakes, including setting timelines for withdrawal and failing to bring the American people along.

Arbitrary political limits make it harder to accomplish the mission, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) told me. It is equally important that the president make the public case for our continued presence in Afghanistan. ... President Obama never made that case, and our mission suffered for it.

Trump barely mentioned Afghanistan during the campaign, other than to say it was not going well or to compare it favorably to Chicago. The lack of campaign rhetoric gives Trump something of a free hand to choose any policy he wants.

The generals supporting the plan could strengthen their case by getting NATO allies to make human and financial commitments up front. That would address Trumps criticism that NATO doesnt do counterterrorism and doesnt pay its fair share. The generals might also argue that Afghanistan is a natural long-term partner for the regional fight against terrorism, which is not going away soon.

Experts mostly agree, though, that surging resources to bolster the Afghan security forces is a stopgap measure at best. Without a comprehensive strategy that deals with Pakistans insistence on providing support and sanctuary for the Taliban, no gains are sustainable. A new strategy also must include a plausible path to return to negotiations to end the conflict. For now, the Taliban doesnt feel enough pressure to compromise.

An open-ended commitment with no strategy poses a very high risk of very expensive failure, said Christopher Kolenda, a former senior adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan at the Pentagon.

Mattis, Nicholson, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. and new national security adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster all have deep experience in Afghanistan and understand that the military aspect of the plan is necessary but not sufficient.

Selling a new U.S. commitment to Trump and then to the American people will not be easy. But if the administration is able to tune out the politics, share the burden and follow a clear strategy, the benefits of the deal will outweigh the costs.

Read more from Josh Rogins archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

View original post here:
Selling Trump a new Afghanistan commitment - Washington Post

Zimbabwe v Afghanistan, 5th ODI, Harare February 26, 2017

ESPNcricinfo staff

Afghanistan 253 for 9 (Rahmat 50, Nabi 48, Mpofu 3-46) beat Zimbabwe 54 (Nabi 3-14, Hamza 3-20) by 106 runs (D/L Method) Scorecard

Rahmat Shah top scored with 50 Zimbabwe Cricket

Afghanistan's bowlers combined to roll Zimbabwe over for 54, helping the visitors seal a 3-2 series win with a 106-run D/L victory in the final ODI in Harare.

Afghanistan elected to bat and were provided a brisk start thanks to opener Noor Ali Zadran's 49-ball 46, even as Zimbabwe got regular breakthroughs early on. Noor Ali eventually fell at the end of the 15th over, a wicket that put the brakes on Afghanistan's momentum as captain Asghar Stanikzai and Rahmat Shah tried to steady the innings from 85 for 3. The pair put on 39 off 64 balls, which was followed by a fifth-wicket stand of 35 between Shah and Samiullah Shenwari. After Rahmat reached his fifty, both he and Shenwari were run-out as Afghanistan found themselves at 172 for 6 at the 40-over mark.

Allrounder Mohammad Nabi then batted with the lower order, hitting four fours and a six in his 48 off 40 balls. Dawlat Zadran hit 14 off 6 balls to lift them to 253 for 9. Medium-pacer Chris Mpofu finished with figures of 3 for 46 while the spin duo of Graeme Cremer and Sean Williams kept things tight and conceded a combined 74 in 20 overs.

Zimbabwe's response was delayed by rain and a wet outfield, leaving them with a revised target of 161 off 22 overs. They suffered an early blow, losing Peter Moor in the second over. Three balls later, left-arm spinner Amir Hamza removed Solomon Mire, before returning two more wickets off four balls in his next over to reduce Zimbabwe to 13 for 4.

There was to be no recovery, with only two batsmen getting into double-figures, as Nabi and Rashid Khan - who were both picked up by the Sunrisers Hyderabad at the IPL auction earlier this week - took combined figures of 5 for 22. Rahmat was named Man of the Match for his fifty.

ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

View post:
Afghanistan raze Zimbabwe for 54 to seal series - ESPNcricinfo.com

The United States remains locked in its longest war to date, a 16-year venture in Afghanistan that shows no signs of relenting. The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. John Nicholson, briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee in early February and drew much needed attention to one of the greatest fiascoes of the U.S. effort in Afghanistan reconstituting a capable, effective, and sustainable Afghan Air Force (AAF). Nicholson bluntly noted that close air support and aerial mobility are the most critical remaining gaps that need to be addressed. He couldnt be more right.

Although the Afghan National Security and Defense Force (ANDSF) has grown significantly since its post-Taliban rebirth, the ANDSF still suffers from attrition, corruption, logistics and maintenance deficiencies, and inadequate air power. The U.S. and NATO effort to reconstitute the AAF began slowly in 2007, and like most efforts in Afghanistan, it soon became mired in bad deals, mismanagement, and bureaucratic disasters.

Afghanistan has used AN-26 transport planes, the predecessor of the AN-32, since 1978. Instead of pursuing the acquisition of additional AN-32 transport planes, which were long familiar to the older Afghan pilots, a deal was cut with Alenia North America to acquire 20 Italian C-27 cargo planes for $486 million. An additional $200 million was earmarked to establish a spare parts inventory, ground support equipment, and for contractor support to keep the fleet maintained.

In the end, the program failed Alenia struggled to meet its contractual obligations and the fleet of C-27s were grounded in 2012, the program was canceled outright in 2013, and the fleet of C-27s were sold for scrap to a local Afghan construction company for 6 cents a pound, amounting to a mere $32,000. TheSpecial Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko stated in 2012 thatits imperative that the U.S. government does not repeat the mistakes made throughout this nearly half-billion dollar program.

Fast forward to 2017 and the Pentagon is again finding itself in a similar position. Nicholsons sworn testimony confirms that the U.S. government is considering replacing Afghanistans Russian-made fleet of Mi-17 transport helicopters with 53 U.S. Army UH-60 Blackhawks at a cost of $814 million. The program is heavily supported by Sen. Richard BlumenthalRichard BlumenthalLast chance to improve Afghanistans fledgling Air Force? Poll: Senate should confirm Gorsuch A guide to the committees: Senate MORE (D-Conn.). Notably, the Blackhawk helicopter is manufactured by Sikorsky at a facility in Connecticut. The Pentagon had to terminate its $554 million contract withRussias state-owned military exporter Roboronexport to provide additional Mi-17 helicopters and spare parts to the AAF in 2013 following opposition from senators such a Blumenthal over Russians military support to Syrian dictator Bashir Assad and for Russias invasion of Crimea.

While Blumenthals sales pitch for U.S.-manufactured Blackhawks might fall in line with the"America First" message President Trump conveyed in his inaugural address, plans to transition the AAF from one of its most relied upon aircraft the Mi-17 amid Afghanistans heaviest fighting in years, is a grave mistake.

Nicholson warned Congress that it would take 21 months from the initial approval decision to field the first refurbished and upgraded UH-60 to the AAF, and any further delays in making such a decision would further widen the critical Afghan aerial capability gap. Nicholson further warned that with the AAF unable to field the UH-60s until 2019, the burden would fall upon U.S. aviation and authorities to bridge the gap, which would put U.S. campaign objectives at serious risk.

Extending the life of the fleet or replacing expended Mi-17s should be considered essential in the short term to provide the AAF with an organic aerial mobility and fires capability until a reasonable transition time to UH-60s is achieved. A hard stop in the AAFs usage of Mi-17s in 2017 and 2018 will unnecessarily put the lives of the ANDSF at risk and further threaten U.S. objectives in Afghanistan.

As a man who disdains bad deals, President Trump and must carefully balance the America First policy with the ground realities of Americas longest fought war. The proposed acquisition of UH-60 Blackhawks given the current situation in Afghanistan is reminiscent of the bad deal cut with Alenia in 2008. The additional years worth of training, which would include retraining pilots, ground crews, and logistics and maintenance personnel, would further delay the anticipated 2020 timeline for a fully functional Air Force. Given the precarious nature of Afghanistans fragile National Unity Government and the ANDSFs continuing fight against a robust and growing insurgency, the additional years needed for training and transition are an unrealistic luxury that Afghanistan and its allies cannot afford.

Matthew C. DuPe is a senior South Asia analyst for the U.S. Defense Department. Matthew Archibald isindependent researcher and consultant on South Asian issues. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency of the U.S. government.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read more here:
Last chance to improve Afghanistan's fledgling Air Force? | TheHill - The Hill (blog)