Mediaboss Marketing

Of all the countries the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) has tried to conquer, Afghanistan has proved the toughest. The countrys resilience is particularly impressive given ISIS continued terrorist attacks, designed to instil fear across its provinces.

On March 5, the group released an execution video from its stronghold in Achin, a district of Nangarhar province on the border with Pakistan. In the film, two men kneel before the militants, who accuse them of working as government spies. One is shot in the head, the other is decapitated. Three days after the video came out, a bomb went off at the rear of a military hospital in the Afghan capital of Kabul. Gunmen dressed as medics then entered the building and opened fire, leading to an hours-long battle with security forces. The final death toll was 38 people, with dozens more injured. ISIS Amaq news agency wasted no time in taking credit.

Taken together and in isolation, these two events seem to suggest that ISIS is thriving in Afghanistan, just as it once did in Libya, Iraq and Syria. One could make the assumption that in Afghanistan, the group is maintaining its perverse version of law and order throughout its territory, while still having the organization and resources to strike the capital. Its what ISIS would like you to thinkbut it may not be true.

Afghan policemen arrive at the site of a blast and gunfire at a military hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan March 8, 2017. ISIS have claimed responsibility for the attack, which some believe the Taliban carried out. Omar Sobhani/Reuters

ISIS position in Afghanistan is getting weaker by the day. U.S. forces have promised to defeat the group by the end of the year, while NATO and Afghan troops have already cut the number of districts the group holds from more than 10 to between three and five.

It is a humiliating loss for ISIS, which has failed to make any significant headway in Afghanistan, a country that the Afghanistan Analysts Network describes as having historical cache as the home of the first successful jihad of modern times. Split into 398 districts, only a tiny part of Afghanistan ever belonged to ISIS. Now, less than two and a half years after the groups commanders (a bunch of former Pakistan Taliban members) pledged allegiance to ISIS, the group looks to be in the sunset of a fairly dismal attempt to raise its black flag over Afghanistan.

Back in October 2014, when the groups leaders made their oath, they might have thought that they could replicate ISIS successes elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa. But, Afghanistan already had a dominant terrorist groupand it certainly wasnt going to move over for some jumped-up jihadists.

The Taliban currently controls more territory in Afghanistan than at any time since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Last month, the Long War Journal estimated the group held 43 of the countrys districts and was influencing or contesting 56 more. Several of the experts Newsweek spoke to said they believe rogue elements of the Taliban were behind the Kabul hospital attack but ISIS, greedy for publicity, was permitted to take credit.

Usually, the Taliban is not so lenient. The Taliban sees ISIS as a competitor on the battlefield, says the Afghanistan Analysts Network, whose members asked to be quoted only with the organizations name. When ISIS began appearing in Afghanistan and tried to get a foothold, the Taliban cracked down on them.

When ISIS tried to gain traction in the west of the country, adds Ronald Neumann, the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and now president of the American Academy of Diplomacy, the Taliban sent in reinforcements and badly damaged ISIS there.

Part of the Talibans dislike of ISIS in Afghanistan is that the group is made up of former Taliban members, some of whom the Taliban expelled for being too brutal. (Members of other central and south Asian militant groups make up the rest of ISIS).

Smoke rises from the site of a blast and gunfire between Taliban and Afghan forces in Kabul, Afghanistan March 1. Reuters

That the group contains these extremists also explains its failure to gain a foothold in Afghanistan. Its very hard to win hearts and minds, when, as ISIS did in August 2015, you force a group of 10 Afghans to kneel on explosives and blow them up. The Taliban is brutal but it usually does not overreach altogether in its brutality, says Vanda Felbab-Brown, senior fellow at the U.S. think-tank, the Brookings Institution. ISIS in Afghanistan has applied the opposite tactics. It revels in brutality, brutality that is extreme even by Afghan standards.

Unlike the Taliban, says Hameed Hakimi, a research associate at the U.K. think-tank, Chatham House, ISIS does not make any concessions to local people. The group is completely anti local culture, Hakimi says. It ignores issues of honor, belief in clans and ruler networks, hierarchies of society. For ISIS, framing a caliphate goes against all of this. It see itself as a purification.

Large swathes of the Afghan population might loathe the Taliban, but it has still managed to maintain considerable local support, particularly in rural areas. Felbab-Brown points to the militants allowing the opium trade to continue versus ISIS prohibiting it. ISIS is not just killing Afghans, its costing them jobs, she says. Its hardly surprising some see the Taliban as the lesser of two evils.

The hostility ISIS faces internally, from Afghans and the Taliban, has kept it small, and made it easier for government forces and international allies to target it. Afghan national forces, the U.S., NATO and the Taliban are pounding away at ISIS, says Felbab-Brown, who also references NATOs belief that Russia is assisting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Largely friendless in the country, ISIS seems unlikely to stage a resurgence. Geographically distant from central command in Iraq and Syria, it can count on little support, particularly in terms of manpower, from the parent organization. Besieged on all sides, the U.S. promise to defeat the group could still come true.

Read more:
Why ISIS is Failing to Build a Caliphate in Afghanistan - Newsweek

Afghanistan remains one of the most dangerous and most violent, crisis ridden countries in the world, where one third of the population needs help, according to the United Nations.

Afghanistan

A recent report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs found that 9.3 million people in Afghanistan are in need of aid due to armed conflict. The population of Afghanistan is more than 32 million.

In 2016, every province in Afghanistan was affected by a natural disaster or armed conflict. More than half were affected by both. The fighting killed more than 8,000 civilians in the first nine months of 2016. A half million people lost their homes by November.

Jens Laerke is with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

"We expect very high levels of conflict-induced displacement and already this year, over 38,000 people have been newly displaced.

More than half of those displaced were children.

The United Nations International Childrens Emergency Fund, or UNICEF says children and mothers are at great risk. The organization calls Afghanistan one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a baby, a child or mother because of limited access to health care.

UNICEF reports that thousands of Afghan women die every year because of problems linked with pregnancy. It says those deaths can be prevented. In 2015, it says more than one in every 18 Afghan children died before their first birthday.

UNICEF spokesman, Christophe Boulierac, says their poor diet is a silent emergency. He says more than 41 percent of Afghan children under age five are stunted. It is one of the highest rates in the world.

"Stunting, as you know, is a sign of chronic undernutrition during the most critical periods of growth and development in early life. Children who suffer from stunting are more likely to contract disease, less likely to access basic health care and do not perform well in school."

Boulierac says that the education system in Afghanistan has been destroyed by more than thirty years of conflict. He says three and a half million children do not go to school. An estimated 75 percent of them are girls.

Im Dorothy Gundy.

Lisa Schlein reported on this story for VOANews.com. Dorothy Gundy adapted this story for Learning English. Hai Do was the editor.

_______________________________________________________________

province n. any one of the large parts that some countries are divided into

displacement - n. the act of forcing people or animals to leave the area where they live

stunted - n. to stop (someone or something) from growing or developing

chronic - adj. continuing again and again for a long time

undernutrition - n. the process of not getting the right kind of food to grow and be healthy

critical - adj. extremely important

Go here to read the rest:
Afghanistan, a Dangerous Place to Be, to Have a Baby - Voice of America

KABUL He is a ghost with a blood-soaked past, a man with so many enemies that even his closest aides, trying to orchestrate his return to the Afghan capital he once attacked, coyly insist they have no idea where he is.

Six months ago, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar emerged briefly from the shadows, appearing via video to sign a peace agreement with President Ashraf Ghani. The deal with the notorious fugitive warlord whose rockets rained down on Kabul during the 1990s civil war was touted as a breakthrough that could induce Taliban insurgents to follow suit.

[Afghan government signs peace pact with guerrilla group led by fugitive Islamist]

Last month, the U.N. Security Council voted to lift terrorism-related sanctions against Hekmatyar, 69, partially clearing his way to return home and participate in politics. His aides here envision a grand entry into Kabul worthy of Alexander the Great, with caravans converging on the city from four directions, thousands of armed guards securing his path, and swarms of loyalists following from camps in Pakistan.

The agreement has been made, and there will be no U-turn. He will come as a leader of the nation, and it will be a great help for peace. Big crowds will gather to welcome him, and their numbers will speak, said Qariburrahman Saeed, a spokesman for Hekmatyar, whose advance team is operating from an elegant, heavily guarded mansion here.

But that prediction is beginning to look like a fantasy. Negotiations over the conditions of Hekmatyars return are at a standstill, and official enthusiasm is waning. Some analysts suggest that the immersion of such a polarizing figure in national politics, instead of helping to restore peace after 16 years of war, could aggravate the power struggles that are tearing the government apart.

Hekmatyar, known as a canny politician, brutal fighter and stern Islamist, has cut a dizzying path through successive Afghan conflicts. In the 1980s he headed an anti-Soviet militia sponsored by the CIA and Pakistan; after the Soviets withdrew, he became a transitional prime minister and then a destructive factional brawler in the civil strife that followed.

When the Taliban militia seized power in 1996, Hekmatyar went underground, moving between Pakistan and Iran. After the Taliban regime was overthrown in 2001, he declared war on the new civilian rulers in Kabul, sometimes fighting alongside Taliban insurgents. His political party, Hezb-i-Islami, was declared illegal, and the U.S. government designated it a terrorist group. Two efforts at reconciliation failed, and Hekmatyar has not been seen in public in two decades.

[CIA fails in bid to kill Afghan rebel with a missile ]

Ghanis invitation to this invisible adversary was viewed here as a desperate move rather than a considered strategy. In principle, Hekmatyar agreed to disarm his forces, respect the Afghan constitution and re-enter political life; in return, the government offered him amnesty for wartime abuses, freedom to organize politically, and generous subsidies for his lifestyle and protection.

But months later, negotiators are far apart on most crucial details. Hekmatyar wants to bring his own security; the government wants its forces involved. He wants hundreds of prisoners from his former militia released; the government says only a fraction of them can be freed. He wants tens of thousands of his returning followers to be given land; the government says that is not feasible.

To many Afghans, including those who suffered through the siege of Kabul by Hezb-i-Islami and other warring militia factions, even Ghanis original concessions seemed too generous, if not naive. Human rights groups especially condemned the amnesty for Hekmatyar and his commanders, who had garnered a reputation for exceptional cruelty over the course of three conflicts.

The impunity granted him by the government and the removal of his name from the U.N. black list will give him and his party free rein to continue their crimes, said Ubair Kabir, a member of the Solidarity Party of Afghanistan, which held protests against the accord. Justice cannot be sacrificed for peace.

The negotiations also have been stymied by political divisions in both camps. Ghanis power-sharing pact with his former opponent for the presidency, Abdullah Abdullah, has deteriorated into an open feud. One of Hekmatyars former rival groups, Jamiat-i-Islami, is in the thick of the fight. His aides, while negotiating with Ghani, are trying to revive old alliances with leaders on both sides of that divide.

[Divisions within Afghanistans government reach a new crisis point]

Hekmatyars party, too, has splintered into factions in the absence of its central leader. After Hezb-i-Islami was declared illegal, some members left to work for the government. Others stayed but pledged loyalty to various ex-militia commanders. Hekmatyars aides assert that once he returns, the membership will rally behind him, but so far they cannot even agree on whether he should return as a party leader, a presidential contender or a benign elder statesman.

Hezb is very fragmented, and its all about personal interests. We dont know whether these former commanders will unite around Hekmatyar or work against him, said Timor Sharan, who represents the nonprofit International Crisis Group in Kabul. He noted that Hekmatyar is rumored to be ill.

This is his last attempt to reach power, this time through elections, Sharan said.

As Hekmatyars political rehabilitation bogs down, hopes are fading that his return might inspire the Taliban to reconcile with the government, too. One government adviser, who was not authorized to speak publicly and thus spoke on the condition of anonymity, said: There is a feeling that things have failed. Excitement is down.

Many Afghans argue that banking on Hekmatyar to influence the Taliban was unrealistic to begin with, given the insurgents increasing success on the battlefield and their denunciation of him as a criminal and traitor to Islam when the peace accord was announced. In some regions his forces have joined with the Taliban, but in others they have been competitors.

And although Hekmatyar remains popular in certain provinces, it is difficult to imagine him being welcomed back to the capital he once pounded with rockets. Well aware of this, his advisers in Kabul have been working to re-brand him as a thoughtful religious scholar and man of letters. Two weeks ago, they organized a conference here to showcase his writings, including more than 100 books, mainly on Islamic topics.

For 30 years, people only heard the opposition propaganda about us, said Kareem Amin, a longtime Hekmatyar adviser. We are not intransigent warlords. We want to unify and rebuild Afghanistan.

Although he said he was not in direct touch with Hekmatyar, Amin described him as a man of wisdom and knowledge who spends his time reading and writing. In the recent video, the aging warlord wore glasses and looked like a dignified elder.

But unless Hekmatyar ventures out of hiding and remakes himself as a man of peace, he is likely to remain lodged in the public imagination as the ruthless butcher of Kabul a city where old buildings bear the scars of rocket fire from a quarter-century ago, and residents still describe cowering in their basements, cursing his name.

Sayed Salahuddin contributed to this report.

Read more:

The U.S. was supposed to leave Afghanistan by 2017. Now it might take decades.

Todays coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

See original here:
Afghanistan wooed a fugitive warlord, aiming to lure the Taliban, too ... - Washington Post

TONY WALL

Last updated05:00, March 26 2017

HIT & RUN

Fatima, 3, is allegedly one of the six Afghans killed during an SAS-led raid in 2010.

Prime Minister Bill English is expected to make a decision "shortly" about launching aninquiry into the allegations aboutSASactivities in Afghanistan in 2010.

Meanwhile the SAS has been calling the partners and relatives of soldiers serving overseas to ensure them the service acts with "integrity", in the wake of allegations about its activities in Afghanistan.

The unusual calls come in response to the bookHit &Runby journalists NickyHagerand Jon Stephenson, which allegesthat a botched SAS-led raid on two villages in the Tirgiran Valley in 2010 caused the deaths of six civilians, but no insurgents.

MONIQUE FORD / FAIRFAX NZ

Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson's book Hit & Run.

They included a three-year-old girl, a father and son, two poor farmers, and a teacher visiting home.

READ MORE: *Afghan villagers engage NZ lawyers over 'Hit and Run' SAS raid *Hit and Run: The six people a new book alleges a NZ SAS raid killed

Details of the deaths were based on interviews with villagers, a report from the Afghan government, and unnamed sources who say they were involved in the raid.

MONIQUE FORD/FAIRFAX NZ

Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson at the launch of their new book Hit & Run earlier this week.

One spouse who received a call said it felt like the SAS was trying to put a spin on the story and considered the call "bizarre". The person's partner is currently serving in the Middle East.

Asked about the reason for the calls, a New Zealand Defence Force spokesperson said: "We have nothing further to add at this time".

Hagersaid he believed the SAS was trying to do damage control because they knewa lot of people were unhappy about their conduct.

"What I believe is going on here is the SAS is trying to keep a lid on this because there's a lot of people who know things that they don't want to come out," Hager said.

Stephenson said the SAS has been withholding information for years. "The public has beenactively misled. We deserve to know why, and who was responsible."

English's press secretary, Nick Venter, could not confirm when exactly an announcement can be expected but indicatedEnglish is meeting with Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee and theNZDFtoday to discuss theallegations.

-Sunday Star Times

The rest is here:
SAS calling for 'integrity' in wake of Afghanistan death revelations - Stuff.co.nz

Two weeks ago, the New York Times published an article by retired U.S. Army colonel and Boston University professor Andrew J. Bacevich: The Never-Ending War in Afghanistan. It begins with a question that should make every American wince: Remember Afghanistan? The longest war in American history? Ever? Although the U.S. officially ended its combat mission in Afghanistan in December 2014, there are still about 8,400 American troops in the country. And earlier this month, the head of U.S. Central Command (Gen. Joseph Votel) said he would like to see that number increased.

According to the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, Afghan National Defense and Security Forces are ensnarled in a bloody stalemate with the Taliban. When he testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Nicholson said more U.S. troops would be necessary to reinforce ANDSFs offensive capability: In my train, advise and assist mission we have a shortfall of a few thousand. On March 9, Votel publicly agreed with Nicholsons assessment and prescription.

U.S. forces have been fighting in Afghanistan for more than a decade and a half, but theres barely a flicker of interest back home. As Bacevich observed in his article, President Trump didnt even bother to mention Afghanistan in his Inaugural Address or his speech to a joint session of Congress last month: For the new commander in chief, the war there qualifies at best as an afterthought assuming, that is, he has thought about it all. Bacevich could have added Trumps Feb. 16 press conference, his address at Central Command last month, his speech at the Republican National Convention and practically every foreign policy speech he delivered during the campaign to the list of high-profile appearances that didnt include the word Afghanistan or a single reference to the American soldiers stationed there.

As commander in chief, Trump has a responsibility to acknowledge the servicemen and women who are fighting in the United States longest war. (Is this really something he needs to be told?) This isnt just a matter of decorum obvious disinterest from the White House sustains a general sense of lethargy about the conflict in the rest of the country. At a time when Congressional oversight has become pro forma and Washington has ceased to care about Afghanistan (this is how Bacevich described the situation), Americans need a leader to wrench them out of their torpor. Just dont expect Trump to be that leader. While he has plenty of time to pound out crotchety tweets about The Apprentice and disgorge alt-right conspiracy theories about illegal wiretapping, illegal voting, fake protesters and FAKE NEWS, he refuses to discuss one of the most difficult and consequential foreign policy challenges his administration faces.

Trump has proven that hes preternaturally adept at manipulating the news cycle with strategically combustible remarks and tweets, and he exercises this ability far more often and with much less care than any of his predecessors. This is why the words wiretapping allegations have been carved into our brains over the past few weeks. While this particular stunt hasnt done much for Trumps popularity (as I write, his approval rating is around 40 percent), it demonstrates how much power he has to set the agenda for journalists in the U.S. and around the world. Just think of the resources media organizations have dumped into the wiretapping story. Think of the hours reporters and columnists have invested in deconstructing, debunking and deriding tweets that Trump spent a few seconds typing. Think of Trump ambling up to the tee box after setting the whole thing in motion, indifferent to the international furor and political mayhem he caused only hours earlier.

As long as one man has such inordinate influence over what millions of people are condemned to ponder, protest, discuss and debate, wouldnt it be nice if he started a productive conversation for once? Couldnt he say a few words about the future of our involvement in Afghanistan instead of moaning about Alec Baldwins unwatchable SNL impersonation, Meryl Streeps speech at the Golden Globes and Arnold Schwarzeneggers pathetic ratings on The Apprentice?

Trumps lack of interest in Afghanistan isnt surprising. Nothing about the conflict is amenable to his bellowing populism or his practiced opportunism it moves too slowly, its gone on too long and his role as commander in chief cant be reconciled with his grim rhetoric: Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven failure; Lets get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA; We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place. In case you need any more evidence that Trump is an inveterate liar, consider this: even with all of these comments on the record, he still claims that he never said we made a mistake going into Afghanistan.

Regardless of whether Trump is right or wrong about the failure of American policy in Afghanistan, he needs to determine what that policy will be going forward. But hes only interested in talking about the conflict thats currently filling the headlines (and happens to be going relatively well). Despite Trumps constant excretions about inheriting a disaster and a mess in the Middle East, the campaign against the Islamic State is actually making tenacious progress. As Hal Brands recently put it Foreign Policy Magazine, Barring some catastrophic U.S. policy misstep, the defeat of the Islamic State at least in Iraq and Syria is probably just a matter of time. All of eastern Mosul has been recaptured and coalition forces are making substantial gains in the west. While Raqqa will probably take longer to fall, the Islamic States territory is contracting every day.

Compared with recent successes against the Islamic State in Mosul and other parts of Iraq and Syria, progress in Afghanistan is glacial (and at the moment, static). We may even be going backward. While it only took the U.S. military two months to dislodge the Taliban from power in late 2001, well still be fighting the insurgency two decades later. When Votel and Nicholson used the word stalemate to describe whats happening in Afghanistan, they were being optimistic. More Afghan soldiers were killed in 2016 than in 2015 and the Taliban contests territory inhabited by one-third of the total population (around 10 million people). As of last November, only 57 percent of the countrys districts were controlled by the government a reduction from 72 percent a year earlier. A few days ago, the Taliban overran Sangin a fiercely contested district in Helmand province that took Coalition forces years to capture. More British troops and U.S. Marines have died in Sangin than in any other district, and its one of the most strategically important locations in Helmand.

How long is Trump going to ignore Afghanistan? Its clear that he views U.S. policy there as sclerotic and counterproductive, but does anyone have any idea what he plans to do about it? When he was asked about the war during the campaign, he said hed begrudgingly keep troops in the country. But everyone knows what he really thinks: that the war is a proven failure, a waste and a terrible mistake. When he promised to stay in Afghanistan, he added, I hate doing it. I hate doing it so much. These arent the words of a commander in chief whos eager to develop a new strategy theyre the words of a man who thinks defeat is inevitable.

Contact Matt Johnson at (785) 295-1282

or @mattjj89 on Twitter.

Visit link:
Matt Johnson: Trump can't ignore Afghanistan forever | The Topeka ... - Topeka Capital Journal