Mediaboss Marketing

The insurgent group claims to contest 167 more, many in southern, western and northern Afghanistan.

Earlier this week, the Taliban posted a report to their website enumerating, in detail, which districts the group controls and contests in Afghanistan. The report, titled Percent Of Country Under The Control Of Mujahedin of Islamic Emirate, as Bill Roggio writes for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies Long War Journal, may be seen as propaganda, but it does not inflate or exaggerate the Talibans control of districts centers and contested areas throughout the country, in comparison to FDDs data.

Borrowing FDDs terminology and breakdown: The Taliban claims to fully control 34 districts, contest 167, maintain a significant presence in 52 districts, a minimal presence in 6 districts and no presence in 89 districts.

This data doesnt quite match up with claims made by U.S. forces and the government of Afghanistan, as reported in the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR)s latest quarterly report, which states that while insurgents control 9 districts and influence 32, 133 districts are contested. As for the government of Afghanistan, the SIGAR report says it controls only 83 districts and influences 150.

Differences in perspective, timing and terminology aside, the overall trajectory remains grim. The SIGAR report noted that according to U.S. forces in Afghanistan, from August 30 to November 15, 2016 alone, the number of districts under insurgent control or influence rose 2 percent and the number of contest districts rose 4.2 percent.

Moving beyond the numbers, FDDs map is worth taking a closer look at. The districts the Taliban says it controls are clustered, with a significant number in the south and west, including large portions of Helmand, Nimroz, Uruzgan, Zabul, Ghazni, and Farah.

The north is also seemingly heavily contested, particularly along the Turkmenistan border.

This reinforces what I (and Bruce Pannier) have written recently that not all is as quiet along the Turkmen front as Ashgabat likes to say. Maybe the Taliban arent looking north, and maybe as a former Afghan minister recently claimed the Turkmen are selling weapons to the Taliban to keep them happy and content on their side of the border.

Turkmenistan has an overriding economic interest in stability in Afghanistan but perhaps not an overriding preference for whose stability it is. The planned route for the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline follows the Herat-Kandahar highway through Afghanistans Herat, Farah, Helmand and Kandahar provinces. The splash of black districts (those the Taliban claims to control) in southwestern Afghanistan lays along that same road.

Ashgabat may be taking solace in the Talibans pledge, made last December, not to attack infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, including TAPI. Turkmenistan has a serious economic need to lengthen the list of countries to which it exports gas. At present, nearly all of the countrys exports are to China. The Talibans pledge may prove thin, if serious work on the pipeline ever begins.

Here is the original post:
Taliban Claims to Control 34 Districts in Afghanistan - The Diplomat

Vehicles en route to Afghanistan line up near the Pakistani-Afghan border in northwest Pakistan's Torkham on March 7, 2017 SidiqueXinhua News Agency/Getty Images

Pakistan has begun work on a fence that will trace its mountainous northwest border with Afghanistan, Islamabad announced Saturday.

A better managed, secure and peaceful border is in mutual interest of both brotherly countries who have given phenomenal sacrifices in war against terrorism, Pakistans army chief, General Qamar Bajwa, said in a statement from the country's tribal hinterlands, the Wall Street Journal reports .

But instead, a border fence could further inflame tensions between Pakistan and its landlocked northeasterly neighbor. For one thing, Afghanistan disputes the legitimacy of much of the border, which was drawn up under British colonial rule; for another, each side accuses the other of harboring terrorists.

The measure follows a spate of terrorist attacks in recent weeks that have killed more than 100 people on Pakistani soil. Islamabad blames these on militants that it says have relocated across its porous border, which it closed for more than a month in February, citing "security reasons."

Meanwhile, Kabul had long accused Pakistan of offering safe haven for the Afghan Taliban and the allied Haqqani network. It's a charge with which Washington concurs, reports the WSJ.

Building a fence will not help solve the problem, but will only create more tension, General Dawlat Waziri, a spokesperson of the Afghan Ministry of Defense, told the WSJ . To counter terrorism, Pakistan needs to deny sanctuaries to terrorist groups, stop financing, training and helping them."

[ WSJ ]

See original here:
Pakistan Has Started Fencing Off Its Border With Afghanistan - TIME

Ireland batsman Andrew Balbirnie is in line to play against Afghanistan in the Intercontinental Cup clash in India. Photograph: Barry Chambers/Inpho

Irelands cricketers face a gruelling test of both their cricketing ability and physical endurance over the next four days in India as they take on Afghanistan in a key Intercontinental Cup clash.

Afghanistan are hosting the game in the Delhi suburb of Greater Noida, where temperatures are set to hit 40 degrees on all four days of the match, which gets underway at 10am local time on Tuesday (4.30am Irish time).

The match sees the top two sides in the Intercontinental Cup meet with control of the competition up for grabs. And considering that the top side in the table come the end of the competition later this year will get a chance to play off for a shot at Test cricket, the stakes couldnt be higher.

Ireland are 19 points clear of Afghanistan after four games (80 plays 61) but John Bracewells side face a far tougher run in with matches against the Netherlands and Scotland, albeit both are home fixtures. Afghanistan are away to Hong Kong and at home to the UAE in their final two fixtures and will look to gain full points from both.

Ireland have claimed maximum 20-point hauls in their four games to date, including winning by an innings in their last two away to Namibia and at home to the UAE.

Afghanistan, though, have had the upper hand on Ireland lately, winning the recent ODI series 3-2 and also claiming a clean sweep in the three-match T20 series.

The longer format has always been a strong suit for Ireland and they have dominated the Intercontinental Cup since its inception in 2004, losing just two of 36 matches and winning the tournament four times out of six stagings.

One of those losses came at a neutral venue to Afghanistan, when they ended Irelands six-year unbeaten run in Sri Lanka in 2010.

Afghanistan went on to win the title that year but Ireland gained revenge with a comprehensive 122-run victory against them in the 2013 final in Dubai.

Conditions in India look to favour Afghanistan this time around, especially as their contingent of spin bowlers have enjoyed success lately on the turning wickets in Delhi.

The recent one-day games saw the spinners dominate, with Afghanistans teenage leg-spinner Rashid Khan causing plenty of problems for Irelands batsmen.

With left-arm chinaman spinner Zahir Khan and experienced off-spinner Mohammad Nabi also in their ranks, Ireland captain William Porterfield is well aware of the challenge facing his side, although they have had plenty of time to get use to the wickets in Greater Noida.

It will be a big test for us the conditions, the turning surface against a side that has a lot of spinners. Weve been here for three or four weeks, played a lot of cricket on the same ground, so we could not have asked for better preparation, said Porterfield.

We have seen a lot of Afghanistan in one-day and T20 cricket recently. These conditions suit them and we will have to fall back on [spinners] George Dockrell and Jacob Mulder and hope the batsmen put the runs on the board. I feel not too many runs will decide the game. If we pull it off against Afghanistan, we will be in a great position in the I-Cup.

Ireland have been hit by the loss of all-rounder Kevin OBrien through injury, with Pembroke batsman Andrew Balbirnie in line to bolster the middle order.

Opening bowler Boyd Rankin was also ruled out through injury earlier on the tour, but Ireland are well stocked with seam options. The key selection decisions will surround the make-up of Irelands spin attack with off-spinner Andrew McBrine and leg-spinner Jacob Mulder offering Bracewell options to go alongside Dockrell and Paul Stirling.

SQUADS

AFGHANISTAN: Asghar Stanikzai (capt), Afsar Khan, Mohammad Ahmadzai, Dawlat Zadran, Hashmatullah Shaidi, Mohammad Javedi, Mohammad Nabi, Nasir Jamal, Noor Ali, Rahmat Shahi, Rashid Khan, Shabir Noori, Mohammad Shahzad, Zahir Khan.

IRELAND: William Porterfield (capt), John Anderson, Peter Chase, George Dockrell, Ed Joyce, Tim Murtagh, Andrew McBrine, Barry McCarthy, Jacob Mulder, Andrew Balbirnie, Niall OBrien, Paul Stirling, Gary Wilson, Craig Young.

Read more from the original source:
Ireland's cricketers face serious test against Afghanistan - Irish Times

Retired U.S. Marine Corps General James Mattis testifies before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on his nomination to serve as defense secretary in Washington, U.S. January 12, 2017. Photo by Jonathan Ernst/File Photo/Reuters

WASHINGTON A U.S. counterterrorism airstrike earlier this month in Afghanistan killed an al-Qaida leader responsible for a deadly hotel attack in Islamabad in 2008 and the 2009 attack on a bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team, the Pentagon said Saturday.

In confirming the death of Qari Yasin, U.S. officials said Yasin was a senior terrorist figure from Balochistan, Pakistan, had ties to the group Tehrik-e Taliban and had plotted multiple al-Qaida terror attacks. The airstrike that led to his death was conducted March 19 in Paktika Province, Afghanistan.

Yasin plotted the Sept. 20, 2008, bombing on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad that killed dozens, officials said. The victims included two American service members, Air Force Maj. Rodolfo I. Rodriguez of El Paso, Texas, and Navy Cryptologic Technician 3rd Class Petty Officer Matthew J. OBryant of Theodore, Alabama, U.S. officials said.

The bus attack in the Pakistani city of Lahore killed six Pakistani policemen and two civilians and wounded six members of the cricket team.

READ NEXT: Most convicted terrorists are U.S. citizens. Why does the White House say otherwise?

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in the statement: The death of Qari Yasin is evidence that terrorists who defame Islam and deliberately target innocent people will not escape justice.

The killing of Yasin in eastern Afghanistan lends credence to Pakistani claims that its militant enemies have found sanctuaries there. The neighboring countries routinely charge each other with harboring the others enemies.

Relations deteriorated earlier this year after a series of attacks in Pakistan that killed 125 people led Islamabad to close its border with Afghanistan for more than one month.

The two countries have exchanged lists of insurgents hiding out on the others soil and Afghanistan has also given Pakistan the locations of 23 sanctuaries where its Taliban militants are hiding. Kabul is demanding they be closed.

Follow this link:
Pentagon: An al-Qaida leader killed in Afghanistan airstrike - PBS NewsHour

Trump should refuse to grant the request of Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command, for thousands of additional troops to be sent to Afghanistan. Indeed, Trump should announce that, true to his campaign promise, he will not continue the failed Bush-Obama policy of nation-building in Afghanistan. The president should state that the United States will give the Afghan government six months to work out a deal with the Taliban, but then withdraw U.S. troopsadvisers and alland rapidly scale back the billions of dollars the United States provides to the corrupt government. He should warn the Talibanwho are sure to play a major role in the future of Afghanistanthat if it again hosts terrorists who seek to harm the United States, then the United States will respond with heavy bombings. Also, he should notify U.S. allies, who have troops in Afghanistan and who help train and finance the Afghan government, that if they are willing to take over the futile attempt to turn Afghanistan into a stable government, maybe even a liberal democracy, then they are welcome to try. Otherwise, they may wish to phase out assistance as the United States does.

One notes that General Votel did better than his long line of predecessors in Vietnam, Iraq and in Afghanistanwho time and again asked for more troopsby at least not promising that if his request was granted, then the United States would win the war. He only holds that his request would make the advise-and-assist mission more effective. And Gen. John Nicholson, who is the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said in early March that he needs several thousand more troops to break the stalemate. To win, some previous U.S. military analysts held, the United States will have to stay for long periods. Former U.S. military leader, Dr. John Nagl, said in 2015 that If ground is important enough to spill American blood on it, and in quantity, it is important enough to continue to station American forces on that ground for decades in order to prevent that threat to US interests from arising again. This ignores the principle of sunk costs. Sadly, the losses we have already suffered and inflicted cannot be reversed, but it defies logic that if we have made a bad investment we must continue to do so.

What one hopes Trump advisers will note is that the war in Afghanistan was won a long time ago and easily. Only twelve U.S. soldiers died during the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, where the fighting was largely carried out by locals of the Northern Alliance. The Department of Defense spent only $39.8 billion in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002, while the total cost of security-related aid in 200203 was only $535 million. Killing off most of Al Qaeda was also not a difficult undertaking. What has caused the greatest loss of lives (including that of many locals) and squandering of scores of billions of dollars was the attempt to stay and rebuild Afghanistan into a modern state and ally.

The only previous U.S. successes in long-distance nation-building were in Japan and Germany, which had very different sociological conditions than Afghanistan. The special conditions in Japan and Germany included the cessation of all hostilities, a high level of domestic security, and local acceptance of the foreign occupation and democratization project. In addition, these nations had a strong sense of national unity, competent government personnel and low levels of corruption. Furthermore, they enjoyed strong economic fundamentals, including solid industrial bases, established infrastructure and educated populations. Also, there was vigorous support in these nations for science and technology, corporations, business and commerce.

But none of these conditions are in place in this godforsaken twelfth-century country to repeat what we did in Germany and Japan after World War II. Afghanistan's military and police forces are riddled with corruption and ineptitude, and Afghanistan is by far the world's largest producer of opium, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Supporters of continued U.S. involvement argue that Afghanistan will turn into a breeding ground and haven for terrorists if the United States leaves; and if we do not fight them there, then we will have to fight them here. In a recent op-ed, Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham wrote that The U.S. objective in Afghanistan is the same now as it was in 2001: to prevent terrorists from using the countrys territory to attack our homeland. However, first, terrorism already has so many places to breedin Libya, Syria, Iraq, parts of Pakistan and half a dozen African countriesthat they hardly need one more. So far, there is little evidence that they are able to hit the United States ever since the United States put up its guard after 9/11. Most relevant, the 9/11 terrorists were not Afghans or Taliban, but Saudis and other foreigners that the Taliban reluctantly hosted. There is little reason for them to tolerate them again after the suffering they underwent for the last fifteen years.

More:
America Can't Afford to Buy a Broken Afghanistan - The National Interest Online