Mediaboss Marketing

KABUL (Pajhwok): President Ashraf Ghani on Monday said expanding Afghanistans relations with central Asian countries would bring about many facilities to trade and transit spheres, a statment from the Presidential Palace said.

President Ghani during a meeting with World Bank (WB) Vice President for South Asia Region, Annette Dixon, said the unity governmet was committed to reforms in all spheres.

The president said reforms had been brought to judicial organs and other sectors including mining. While referring to his goverment efforts about regional connectivity, the president said said construciton of railway tracks between Kunduz and Mazar-i-Sharif would connect Iran and China through Afghanistan.

He said Afghanistans strengthening relations with central Asian countries would help facilitate the countrys trade and tranist sectors.

Ghani said he had many programmes for managing waters of the country and their implementation would improve agriculture and electricity production.

Annette Dixon assured of the banks continued economical and development support to Afghanistan, saying South Asian countries would be encouraged to expand tranist and trade ties with Afghnistan.

sns/ma

Read the original post:
Iran, China to be connected via Afghanistan: Ghani - Pajhwok Afghan News (subscription) (blog)

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 Sept. 11, 2001.

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

An Afghan family leaves the site of an attack where the house of an Afghan member of parliament was attacked by Taliban last night in Kabul, Afghanistan December 22, 2016. Reuters

Similarly, while the Talibans ouster also forced al-Qaida into exile in Pakistan and elsewhere, al-Qaida nonetheless continued and expanded its terrorist activities. In Iraq and Syria, al-Qaida 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 the war had gone on too long and 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 Sen. George Aiken, who said we should win and get out, he said he couldnt understand Nixons strategy of lose and stay in.

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.

TALIBANS RETURN TO POWER

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 the imperative of preventing a Taliban victory in Afghanistan that would enable Pakistani Taliban or other terrorist groups to seize control in Islamabad. Not only would such a takeover make all 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 arm, is 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 pre-9/11. Accordingly, abandoning the field in Afghanistan is simply not a tenable strategy.

However, 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, has 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 we have followed since the initial assault on the Taliban. Other alternatives appear available and should be seriously considered, including possibly larger U.S. military commitments of the right sort.

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

A VOLATILE & LETHAL MIX

Politically unstable since British Indias 1947 partition, increasingly under Chinese influence because of the hostility with India, and a nuclear-weapons state, Pakistan is 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 U.S. military 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 U.S. 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 U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations and, previously, the undersecretary of State for arms control and international security.

Read more:
What's next in Afghanistan? - American Enterprise Institute

Registered voters are feeling less confident about Americas prospects in Afghanistan as the war there closes in on 16 years, recent Morning Consult/POLITICO polling shows.

Less than a quarter of Americans (23 percent) believe the United States is winning the war there, versus 38 percent who believe its losing, according to the pollof 1,992 voters.

The results echo similar comments from Defense Secretary James Mattis, who himself acknowledged the United States was not winning in Afghanistan right now. The Trump administration is weighing whether to approve a plan for more troops in the country, and Mattis pledged to develop a new strategy by mid-July.

Initial sources said Trump would give Mattis the authority to add thousands more troops to the roughly 8,400 forces there now. But since then, Mattiss plan has hit an impasse amid disagreements among Trump advisers, some of whom are pushing to scale back U.S. involvement.

Last week, Trump told a group of reporters at his club in New Jersey that he is very close to a decision on updated strategy for the war in Afghanistan.

Were getting close. Were getting very close, Trump said, according to pool reports. Its a very big decision for me. I took over a mess and were going to make it a lot less messy.

In the absence of clear administration policy, most voters also did not support higher troop levels. A plurality of 37 percent said the U.S. should decrease the number of troops in Afghanistan, and 24 percent said troop levels should stay the same. One out of 5 voters said troop levels should rise.

Amid the uncertainty, the security situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. The poll was conducted Aug. 3-6, just after the Pentagon confirmed two U.S soldiers had been killed in a suicide bomb attack on a NATO convoy on Aug. 2. At least 2,400 U.S. service members have lost their lives in and around Afghanistan since the war started in 2001, according to figures provided by icasualties.org, an independent website.

The lack of a clear U.S. direction is also adding to pressure on the Afghan security forces, which are counting on Americas military training and troops to regain lost ground. According to U.S. military data released in July, the Afghan government controls or influences only 60 percent of the countrys 407 districts, down from 65 percent the same time last year.

While most voters were against increasing U.S. troop levels, when asked whether the United States needs a new, more aggressive strategy in the country even if it involves more troops, respondents appeared to change their minds, with 40 percent saying they were in support of the option. On the other hand, 32 percent said the U.S. should withdraw all troops, even if it means decreased ability to combat insurgent forces. (Another 28 percent didnt know or had no opinion.)

Military commander in Afghanistan General Nicholson said he needs more troops, people respect that opinion; but people are also concerned that neither the Obama administration or the Trump administration have a clear strategy for Afghanistan, and they are not satisfied with that, Christopher Kolenda, a former senior advisor on Afghanistan to the Defense Department and now a senior fellow at the Center for Global Policy, said when asked about the discrepancy in polling in an interview last week

At the same time, there may be valid reasons for Trump to rethink the long-term strategy in Afghanistan after former President Barack Obamas back-and-forth on troop deployment. The Obama administration deployed another 30,000 troops to the country in2009 but then withdrew troops over subsequent years after failing to eliminate the insurgency,leaving remaining U.S. troops more vulnerable and making U.S. allies nervous.

Public opinion on taking a more active approach to Afghanistan is split along party lines, with 58 percent of Republicans supporting a more aggressive strategy, compared to 30 percent of Democrats, according to the poll.

The Obama administration, which is Democrat, favored of a withdrawal from Afghanistan, so you still see the legacy of that administration, Kolenda said about the poll. The Republicans were opposed to Obamas timelines and want to see a different approach to Afghanistan.

See the original post:
Voters Pessimistic on Afghanistan as Trump Weighs Boosting Troops - Morning Consult

KABUL (Reuters) - Several senior members of Islamic State's central Asian affiliate were killed in a U.S. air strike in Afghanistan, officials said on Sunday.

The attack on Thursday killed Abdul Rahman, identified by the U.S. military as the Kunar provincial emir for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-Khorasan, according to a statement from the command in Kabul.

"The death of Abdul Rahman deals yet another blow to the senior leadership of ISIS-K," said General John Nicholson, the senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

Three other senior ISIS-K members were also among those killed in the strike in eastern Kunar province.

Nicholson has vowed to defeat Islamic State militants in Afghanistan this year.

The group's emir, Abu Sayed, was reported killed in a strike on his headquarters in Kunar in July, the third Islamic State emir in Afghanistan to be killed since July 2016.

In April, Nicholson deployed a 21,600-pound (9,797 kg) "Massive Ordnance Air Blast" bomb against Islamic State positions in neighboring Nangarhar province, one of the largest conventional weapons ever used by the United States in combat.

On Saturday, Afghan officials said as many as 16 civilians, including women and children, had been killed by a U.S. air strike in Nangarhar, but American officials said only militants were killed.

As part of an increased campaign against both Islamic State and the Taliban, the dominant Islamist militant group in Afghanistan, the U.S. Air Force has dropped nearly 2,000 weapons in the country as of the end of July, compared to fewer than 1,400 in all of last year.

Despite some battlefield successes by Afghan and American special operations troops, Islamic State has continued deadly attacks around Afghanistan, fueling fears that the group is seeking to bring the group's Middle East conflict to Central Asia.

Reporting by Josh Smith; Editing by Kim Coghill

See the rest here:
Senior Islamic State commanders killed in Afghanistan air strike: US military - Reuters

KABUL The U.S. military denied reports on Friday that an air strike in the eastern Afghan province of Nangarhar had killed as many as 16 civilians, saying the operation had killed only militant fighters.

KABUL The Afghan Taliban and Islamic State attacked a village in the northern province of Sar-e Pul this week, killing between 50-60 people, a leading Afghan human rights group said on Friday.

BEDMINSTER, N.J. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he was very close to making a decision on the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan, which is undergoing a review and could see an increase in troop strength.

Five transgender members of the U.S. military including Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans sued President Donald Trump on Wednesday, challenging his ban on transgender people serving in the armed forces.

KABUL Two Afghan women working for a security firm searching people entering Bagram air base near the Afghan capital Kabul were killed on Wednesday and two others wounded by unknown gunmen, officials said.

SAR-E PUL, Afghanistan The Taliban released 235 villagers held after the insurgents captured a village in the northern Afghan province of Sar-e Pul, but the government faced growing pressure over why it had taken so long for security forces to arrive in the area.

ISLAMABAD A suicide bomber killed four Pakistani soldiers in an attack in the troubled northwest near the border with Afghanistan, the army said on Wednesday, at least the second major attack since Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi came to power a week ago.

SAR-E PUL, Afghanistan Afghan village elders are trying to arrange the release of around 150 families held by Taliban fighters in a remote area of the northern province of Sar-e Pul while they await for security forces to arrive, officials said on Tuesday.

KABUL The Taliban rejected reports they used foreign fighters and cooperated with Islamic State in fighting at a remote village in northern Afghanistan this weekend where officials said dozens of local police and civilians were killed.

Continued here:
Afghanistan | Reuters