Archive for the ‘Afghanistan’ Category

Has Afghanistan Become America’s Afghanistan? – The National Interest Online (blog)

Fifteen years and counting. Americas longest war keeps getting longer. The very duration of the expedition, with an end no more in sight now than it had been at any of several points one could have chosen over the last several years, ought to indicatethe need for a fundamental redirection of policy. And yet there continue to be calls, including from influential members of Congress, to sustain and even enlarge the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan.

That campaign has now continued under three U.S. presidents, two Afghan presidents, too many U.S. military commanders to count, and a variety of operational strategies associated with the different generals. Different levels of U.S. troops also have been tried, with the peak of just over 100,000 American troops reached in 2011.

Something approaching peace and stability will come to Afghanistan the only way it ever has come to Afghanistan in the past: through deals reached among the different factions, power centers, and ethnic groups within Afghanistan. External military intervention does not negate or obviate that process, and instead becomes the object of Afghan resistance to outside interference. It is not for nothing that the place is called the graveyard of empires.

The shape of any deals reached among Afghan factions matters relatively little to the United States. One need make no apologies for borrowing from old speeches in describing the current conflict in Afghanistan as a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing. Unlike the circumstances in which that phrase was first used, there is no hostile and threatening power poised to exploit passivity on our part.

The U.S.-led intervention in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 was, at that time, a just response to an attack on the U.S. homeland by a group that was enjoying the hospitality of the Afghan Taliban, which constituted the de facto regime ruling most of Afghanistan. One of the fundamental mistakes in how Americans have viewed Afghanistan ever sincein addition to the mistake of treating as an investment the sunk costs, including 2,400 American deadis to think that the circumstances of 2001 still prevail. They dont. The Afghan Taliban never have been interested in international terrorism. Their focus always has been on the social and political structure of Afghanistan. The past alliance with al-Qaida was one of convenience, in which the payoff for the Taliban was assistance in prosecuting their civil war against Afghan opponents. There is nothing special about Afghanistan, distinguishing it from many other strife-ridden places such as Yemen or Somalia, that connects it today with a terrorist threat against U.S. interests. 9/11 itself was the work of Arabs, not Afghans. And with the gloves having been taken off after 9/11, the Taliban know, as everyone else does, that if anything at all like the 2001 al-Qa'idapresence were to begin being re-established in Afghanistan, the United States would promptly bomb the heck out of it.

The United States had an earlier experience injecting armed force into Afghanistan, with its provision of lethal aidmost notably Stinger anti-aircraft missilesto mujahedin fighting against the Soviets in the 1980s. During that effort, U.S. policymakers showed little or no concern with the political nature and direction of the forces they were aiding, which included what we would today quickly label as violent Islamists. Those forces were used as a tool to bleed the Soviets, who got themselves stuck in a military expedition that reached a strength just slightly bigger (about 115,000 troops) than the later U.S. expedition.

Russians noticed what the United States was doing, and they remember it today. And maybe roles are reversing and the bleeding is coming full circle. U.S. General Curtis Scaparrotti, who is the top NATO commander in Europe, told a Congressional committee this week that Russia appears to be increasing its role in Afghanistan and may be providing material support to the Taliban. The situation is unclear; a spokesman for the Russian foreign ministry strongly denied the accusation, and a careful tally of other relevant Russian interests would not argue in favor of aiding the Taliban. Nonetheless, it would not be surprising if Moscowwith irony and with what many Russians probably would consider just desertstook a page from the U.S. playbook of the 1980s. The underlying idea would be that Afghanistan has become for America today what it was for the USSR back then.

The Soviets did get out of the graveyard of empires, even with no more claim to victory than the United States would have today. The last Soviet soldier to leave Afghanistan was the commander, Lieutenant General Boris Gromov, who walked across a bridge spanning the Amu Darya River into Soviet Uzbekistan on February 16, 1989. His departure marked nine years and 50 days since the initial Soviet intervention. The United States exceeded that mark years ago.

Read more here:
Has Afghanistan Become America's Afghanistan? - The National Interest Online (blog)

Local entrepreneur helps DC businesses grow in Afghanistan – FederalNewsRadio.com

Many entrepreneurs don think of Afghanistan when expanding globally, but business should think twice or risk missing out on an opportunity, said the founder and CEO of global consulting and contracting firm MAIH Group.

Maryam Atmar has a unique background for a business leader in Annandale, Va. Born in Afghanistan, she helps businesses in the D.C. area interface with overseas companies for export opportunities, specifically in her native land.

Earn 1 CPE credit and learn about the expansion of risk management in government with analysis from GAO and Justice OIG. Register now for the free webinar.

One of the main mistakes that businesses, and even governments, make when doing business in Afghanistan is not engaging with locals, she said.

Afghanistan is a tribal country. You need to know the people. You need to know the locals. You need to know the tribal leaders.

Atmar said theres a strong interplay between D.C.s immigrant population and the entrepreneurial community.

If you look at the history, many immigrant children are very successful. Just talking from my own family, there are many doctors, there are many entrepreneurs, there are many business owners that came as immigrants. Because they have so much hope, and they want to change, they can offer a lot.

Female entrepreneurship is also different in the U.S. and Afghanistan. She runs Afghana, a non-profit organization that promotes womens education and training in Afghanistan. There are some amazing personalities, some amazing women that dont have the resources, to start their own businesses there, Atmar told Whats Working in Washington.

Afghanistan is a ripe place for exporting because much of the countrys old infrastructure for generating products and services has been lost, she said.

Afghanistan used to generate everything, and export everything but today, unfortunately,we have to bring [everything] from other countries, because we dont have the equipment, we dont have the training.

Atmar says she hopes that spurring exports from D.C. will realign Afghanistans own economy.

If we bring the skill, we bring the training, theres a tremendous amount of opportunity for business in Afghanistan, she said.

See original here:
Local entrepreneur helps DC businesses grow in Afghanistan - FederalNewsRadio.com

Peace in Afghanistan is possible – Pajhwok Afghan News (subscription) (blog)

Today the European Union will mark 60 years since the signature of the Rome Treaties. Since then the citizens of our Member States have enjoyed six decades of unprecedented peace, prosperity and security. The contrast to the first half of the 20th Century could not be greater. Two catastrophic wars in Europe between 1914 and 1945 left millions dead, and a continent devastated, divided and prostrate. European integration has been the most successful peace project in our history.

The European Union has been engaged in Afghanistan for decades and the European Union and its Member States are the largest donors in Afghanistan. Coming out of the very successful Brussels Conference on Afghanistan in October 2016 we will continue to be so until 2020.

Over the last 60 years Europe has proved that there is an alternative to war. This is also the case here in Afghanistan. Looking into the history of Europe there are many examples of old enemies coming together and agreeing on peace and reconciliation. The same can happen in Afghanistan and we must all work towards achieving peace here. It is our hopes that the European project can serve as inspiration for all Afghans. The EU will make peace the number one goal for our work in the coming years

The world is going through a time of great uncertainty: the global balance of power is shifting and the foundations of a rules-based international order are too often being questioned. The European Union will be an increasingly vital power to preserve and strengthen the global order. The European Union is and will continue to be a strong, cooperative and reliable power. Our partners know what we stand for.

Whatever events may bring in the future, one thing is certain: the EU will continue to put promoting international peace and security, development cooperation, human rights and responding to humanitarian crises at the heart of its foreign and security policies. The EU will remain a strong and committed supporter of the Afghan people. Let's all make peace in Afghanistan our joint priority. Peace is possible.

View expressed in this article are of the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Pajhwoks editorial policy.

More:
Peace in Afghanistan is possible - Pajhwok Afghan News (subscription) (blog)

America Can’t Terror-Proof Afghanistan – The National Interest Online

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a conflict in possession of no military solution must be in want of more troops. Or so one would think from the recommendations on how to succeed in Afghanistan made by Gen. John Nicholson, the force commander in Afghanistan; Gen. Joseph Votel, commander of Central Command; and Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. More troops with greater authorities will break or end the stalemate that all agree exists. Greater authorities means putting U.S. troops back in direct combat with the Taliban and authorizing them to risk killing more Afghan civilians.

More troops may shift the terms of the stalemate slightly and make it last longer, though it will probably last as long as the United States wants to pay for it. With or without more troops, under the present strategy, the U.S. commitment would have to be eternal, because it does nothing to mitigate the geopolitical conditions that created an enabling environment for global terrorism in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and which can be addressed only by political means. Terrorism is not caused by the existence of terrorists, and killing terrorists does not eradicate terrorism. The United States may define counterterrorism as its core interest in the region, but both those we label terrorists and those fighting them have political objectives rooted in the history of their societies. The Taliban were a product of the decades-long collapse of the Afghan state under the pressure of Cold War and regional rivalries. Al Qaeda, a product of the Arab world, developed in the ungoverned space created by war and support for, first, Afghan mujahidin fighting the Soviet Union and then the Taliban. The Islamic State, a product of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, has gained a foothold in Afghanistan by exploiting these same conditions.

Afghanistan has not been able to recover from the collapse of its state triggered by the 1979 Soviet-Afghan war, because the conflicts and shaky governments that followed could not address the core problem: Afghanistan is a landlocked state whose economy, ranked 172 out of 184 countries in gross domestic product per capita by the International Monetary Fund, cannot pay the cost of governing or defending a population scattered in enclaves separated by deserts and mountains. Since its demarcation in its current borders by the British and Russian empires at the end of the nineteenth century, the Afghan state has needed foreign subsidies to survive, and foreign subsidiesand troop deploymentsextend the reach of the power that provides them, regardless of its stated objectives.

When a foreign power, whether British Empire, the Soviet Union, or the United States, supports a state and its army, its enemies and rivals may feel threatened. Afghanistan was stable, first, when the British and Russian empires agreed that the British would subsidize a strong centralized state; that this state would submit to British control of its foreign relations; and that the two great powers would not use Afghanistan to challenge each others spheres of influence in Persia (Iran), Bukhara (Central Asia) and India. During the first half of the Cold War, the United States and USSR, despite their global antagonism, worked out a modus vivendi in Afghanistan, under which each supported different sectors of the state and worked in different areas of the country. It was not difficult to maintain this agreement as long as the stakes in Afghanistan were relatively small.

That Afghanistan is landlocked has two additional consequences. First, support for Afghanistan by an offshore power like the United States requires the cooperation of neighbors with direct access to international waters or airspace, in this case Pakistan, Iran or Russia, which controls offshore access to Central Asia. Second, growth of Afghanistans economy requires cooperation with those and other neighbors for access to international investments and markets.

Given current U.S. relations with Iran and Russia, U.S. access to Afghanistan depends on the cooperation of Pakistan. That dependence is no less real for being problematic: Pakistan provides a safe haven for the Afghan Taliban leadership to pressure the United States and the Afghan government over the Indian presence in Afghanistan and Afghan claims on Pakistani territory. Many U.S. and Afghan analysts argue that pressure on Pakistan to abandon the Afghan Taliban is the solution to the Afghan conflict. As long as U.S. forces and personnel are in Afghanistan, however, U.S. logistical dependence on Pakistan places limits on how much Washington, DC can pressure Islamabad, Measures like sanctions, designation as a state sponsor of terror, cross-border attacks, or cancellation of bilateral assistance could lead Islamabad to cut U.S. supply lines. As long as U.S. relations with Russia and Iran preclude transit through those countries, the United States is stuck with Pakistan.

When Pakistan closed the military supply lines after a series of incidents in 2011, the United States supplied its forces in Afghanistan through Russia and Central Asia. It cannot do so now, and transit through Iran remains impossible. Pakistan is also better situated to resist U.S. unilateral pressure than before. As a result of Chinese construction of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) linking Chinas western Xinjiang province to the Pakistani port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea, Pakistan and China are closer than ever. China does not support Pakistans policy of sheltering the Taliban and would like to help the United States stabilize Afghanistan, but not through a confrontation with Pakistan. Russia and Iran have also grown closer to Pakistan as Indian prime minister Narendra Modi has strengthened ties with the United States.

See the article here:
America Can't Terror-Proof Afghanistan - The National Interest Online

Strategic District in Southern Afghanistan, Sangin, Falls to Taliban – New York Times


New York Times
Strategic District in Southern Afghanistan, Sangin, Falls to Taliban
New York Times
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan The Taliban captured the strategic district of Sangin in the southern province of Helmand on Thursday, the culmination of a yearslong offensive that took the lives of more combatants than any other fight for territory in ...
Is it safe for Britain to send refugees back to Afghanistan?The Guardian
Taliban Retake Key District in AfghanistanVoice of America
Taliban overtakes Sangin district in Helmand province, AfghanistanUPI.com
NEWS.com.au -Anadolu Agency -The Peninsula Qatar
all 25 news articles »

See the article here:
Strategic District in Southern Afghanistan, Sangin, Falls to Taliban - New York Times