Mediaboss Marketing

Just another week in paradise ... heres a look back at the week that was.

The big story this week is Thursdays vote in the House of Representatives passing the most odious, cruel, and the politically suicidal pieces of legislation in modern American history. The GOPs American Health Care Act would strip away health insurance coverage for at least 24 million people. We dont know the more precise number because Republicans didnt bother to wait until the Congressional Budget Office scored the bill before voting on it.

Advertisement

Calling this legislation a health care bill is a bit of a misnomer because there is nothing caring about it. The AHCA will reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $900 billion over the next 10 years and take away the subsidies that allowed millions of Americans to afford health insurance for the first time under Obamacare. It would also cut special education funding, potentially bring back lifetime caps on care, and remove protections so that things like having a C-section, postpartum depression or being raped would be considered a pre-existing condition and thus charged at a higher premium.

Its all very strange because who could imagine that the people in this picture would treat women so badly.

It is not an exaggeration to say that many Americans, perhaps thousands, even tens of thousands are going to die if the GOPs American Health Care Act becomes the law of the land.

Its up to Republicans in the Senate to be the responsible members of their party and stop this legislation in its tracks.

YOU DONT hear much about the US war in Afghanistan, which at 16 years and counting is the longest US conflict in the nations history. Seven and a half years ago, the Obama administration authorized a surge of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan bringing the total US commitment to approximately 100,000 soldiers. At the time, the administration, the US military and its enablers in the think tank and punditry worlds argued that Afghanistan was a vital national interest and that a further influx of US soldiers would break the momentum of the Taliban and strengthen the US-backed Afghan government.

How is that working out?

Advertisement

According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan, not so well.

Here are just some of the lowlights of their latest quarterly report.

Conflict-related civilian casualties in Afghanistan rose to the highest levels since 2009. Security incidents through 2016 and into 2017 are at their peak levels since 2017.

More than 660,000 people fled their homes in 2016, which is a 40 percent increase over 2015.

The Afghan government controls approximately 60 percent of the countrys districts, while the Taliban is dominant in about 11 percent and 29 percent is contested. Sixty-two percent of the countrys budget is reliant on outside donors, drug use among Afghan women and children is one of the highest in the world and half of all married women in the county between ages 15-49 report being victims of physical, emotional or sexual abuse.

Remarkably, the United States has now spent $117 billion on reconstruction in Afghanistan and while there have been some notable improvements in public health, school enrollment, and female empowerment, its hard to argue that Afghanistan is in dramatically better shape than it was 16 years ago when the US war there began. Moreover, its now clear that the surge did little to slow the Talibans momentum or put Afghanistan on the path to stability.

While the US presence in Afghanistan has fallen to 8,400 troops, the Pentagon is reportedly preparing a request for between 3,000 and 5,000 more soldiers. On one level its hard to countenance abandoning the Afghan people with the Taliban clearly remaining a viable insurgent force. But its also hard to see what is gained by putting more US soldiers in harms way for a conflict that few Americans are even paying attention to.

Whatever the right answer, its also clear that US policy in Afghanistan has been an unmitigated failure. Try to keep this in mind the next time some politician or pundit says the United States has the responsibility or capability to intervene militarily in a foreign hot spot. Indeed, the same people who were arguing the United States must do something in Syria earlier this year have had little to say about the policy disaster and thousands of needlessly lost lives that has been the U.S war in Afghanistan.

AP Photos/Massoud Hossaini

A damaged US military vehicle at the site of a suicide attack in Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 3.

Get Arguable with Jeff Jacoby in your inbox:

Our conservative columnist offers a weekly take on everything from politics to pet peeves.

IN OTHER NEWS, the president of the United States doesnt know why the Civil War was fought.

The secretary of states thinks human rights like freedom, dignity and the way people are treated are US values and that if you condition our national security efforts on someone adopting our values it really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests.

I know the State Department is a bit short-staffed these days but perhaps someone in Foggy Bottom could show Rex Tillerson a copy of this: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Tillersons tenure at State is a useful reminder that appointing oil executives with no experience of grounding in international affairs brings with it drawbacks: like a failure to grasp that democratic countries that uphold human rights and treat their citizens with respect are less likely to go to war and more likely to be effective trading partners for America. Anyone who tells you that standing up for universal human rights values is an obstacle to advancing Americas economic and national security interests is simply wrong.

I know it seems tough out there these days, but rest assured, America, even in the face of rampant White House corruption and nepotism, along with allegations of foreign meddling in the U.S. presidential election the chairman of the House oversight committee, Jason Chaffetz is focused on the real issues.

More here:
The week that was: Cruel health care bill, failed Afghanistan policy, and why was the Civil War fought? - The Boston Globe

KUNDUZ, AFGHANISTAN

Taliban militants captured a district just outside the northern Afghan city of Kunduz Saturday, officials said.

Mahfouz Akbari, a police spokesman for eastern Afghanistan, said security forces pulled out of Qala-i-Zal district, west of Kunduz city, Saturday to avoid further civilian and military casualties after more than 24 hours of heavy fighting.

In a statement, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said the insurgents had taken the police headquarters, the governors compound and all security checkpoints. He said several police and soldiers had been killed and wounded.

Kunduz province map

Taliban there before

Over the past 18 months, Taliban insurgents have twice succeeded in seizing the town center of Kunduz for brief periods and the latest fighting underscores warnings that Afghan forces face another grueling year of fighting.

A shopkeeper, whose name is also Zabihullah, said the situation was reminiscent of last October when Taliban forces entered the city before being driven back after days of fighting and air strikes.

I am extremely worried. There are security forces everywhere, he said. Everyone in my family is worried and if the situation gets worse, well have to leave.

Heavy fighting

According to U.S. estimates, government fighters control about 60 percent of the country, with the rest either controlled or contested by the insurgents, who are seeking to reimpose Islamic law after their 2001 ouster.

Although the Taliban made a formal announcement of their spring offensive last week, there had been heavy fighting from the northern province of Badakhshan to the Taliban heartlands of Helmand and Kandahar in the south.

In the Helmand province Saturday, Gen. Aqa Noor Kentoz, provincial police chief, said at least four police officers were killed Friday night at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital.

The four might have been attacked by an insider, Kentoz said, and an investigation is underway.

No one immediately claimed responsibility.

There have also been several operations against Islamic State militants in the eastern province of Nangarhar, which have also involved U.S. special forces and air strikes.

More than 1,000 members of Afghan security forces have been killed since the start of the year, according to Afghan officials and figures cited by U.S. Congressional watchdog SIGAR, along with more than 700 civilians.

Also, more than 75,000 people have been forced to flee their homes in the first four months of the year, according to United Nations figures.

More troops needed

Earlier this year, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, said he needed a few thousand more international troops to boost the Resolute Support training and advisory mission and break a stalemate with the Taliban.

The U.S. military is due to make its formal recommendations to President Donald Trump within the next week, a senior official told a Senate committee last week.

Read the rest here:
Taliban Again Seize Northern Afghanistan City - Voice of America

The Taliban

The United States, and later its anti-terror coalition partners, moved into Afghanistan militarily after the 2001 radical Muslim attacks on Washington and New York City to root out and bring to justice the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans.

Years later, before the Afghans officially took over the mission of their own nations stability, with the close of the International Security Assistance Force Mission at the end of 2014, the U.S. had lost nearly 2,300 military service members, and saw another 20,000 wounded there. At one point the U.S. had about 100,000 members of its military there.

But it now appears that outside help is going to be needed again, as violence has left thousands dead and has surged in ways that now even are impacting its neighbor, Pakistan, and creating international concern, according to a report in Joseph Farahs G2 Bulletin.

For example, the Express-Tribune reported just Friday that a team of Afghan soldiers fired on a census team in Chaman, inside Pakistan, killing at least seven people and injuring another 38.

The report said mortar shells from the Afghanistan side of the border hit houses in a village called Kali Luqman, and at least three children were injured there.

The report contained a statement from Pakistani officials that if such incidents do not stop, Pakistan reserves the right to respond to preserve its sovereignty and protect its civilians.

It is the responsibility of the Afghan government to ensure that such incidents are permanently topped, said a communique from the office of the Pakistani prime minister.

Afghani officials, meanwhile, have been enraged because of previous attacks, including those on American University in Kabul and on Mazar-e-Sharif.

They have been demanding the perpetrators be turned over to Afghanistan, and the conflict was so deep Afghan President Ashraf Ghani recently turned down an invitation to visit Pakistan.

A recent U.S. government report cited the surging violence and bloodshed in Afghanistan. NBC said the report paints a picture of increased violence and bloodshed in the war-torn nation and suggests that preventing the Taliban and other insurgents from increasing their control of the countryside will continue to be a challenge for Afghan security forces.

The report is from the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

The report finds the casualties shockingly high and confirmed that during the first six weeks of 2016, 807 security forces personnel were killed by Taliban factions.

Mass casualty attacks against civilian targets also increased. The report cited an attack that killed 50 people at Afghanistans largest military hospital on March 8 and another that killed two investigators from the Major Crimes Task Force on April 10, NBC said.

The casualties during 2016 totaled 11,418, putting it in line with a full-scale war across the nation.

And the number of Afghans fleeing for the lives up 40 percent from 2015 totaled more than 660,000.

The U.S. report explained how holding insurgents to their own territory was increasingly becoming a challenge for the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces.

For the rest of this report, and more, please go to Joseph Farahs G2 Bulletin.

Follow this link:
Rampant violence in Afghanistan raising new alarms - WND.com

A plan for more troops would be part of a broader set of recommendations on how to adjust the US military approach in Afghanistan that the Pentagon plans to send to President Donald Trump "within the next week," according to Theresa Whelan, the acting assistant secretary of defense for special operations.

The troops, which could consist of special forces personnel and more conventional soldiers, would be part of the NATO-led mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan army and police force in its fight against the Taliban but would also aid the US counterterrorism effort there as well.

Addressing the committee Thursday, Whelan told lawmakers that the proposals are intended "to move beyond the stalemate and also to recognize that Afghanistan is a very important partner for the United States in a very tricky region."

"We want to maintain that partnership with Afghanistan and we want to ensure that Afghanistan reaches its potential, so that's the objective of the strategy," she added.

US Defense Secretary James Mattis traveled to Afghanistan late last month to give the Afghan government his recommendations for US involvement moving forward.

At the time he declined to share what those recommendations were.

But he did say, "We are under no illusions about the challenges associated with this mission," adding that "2017 is going to be another tough year for the valiant Afghan security forces and the international troops who have stood and who will continue to stand should to shoulder with Afghanistan against terrorism."

Top military commanders have said there is a need for additional troops in Afghanistan.

Gen. John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, said in February that the coalition faced "a shortfall of a few thousand" troops to break the "stalemate" it faces there.

Those additional troops would allow US advisers to work with Afghan army units at the brigade level, bringing the Afghan mission more in line with how US advisers operate in Iraq. Currently US advisers are mainly concentrated at the headquarters level, far away from Afghan troops in the field.

There are about 8,400 US troops in Afghanistan. The majority of those forces are involved in training and advising Afghan troops. About 2,000 US servicemembers participate in a counterterrorism mission aimed at targeting groups like al Qaeda and ISIS.

US troops have been present for nearly 16 years in Afghanistan, where the government backed by its coalition allies are battling a resilient Taliban as well as other terror groups including ISIS.

Read the original post:
Pentagon considers sending more troops to Afghanistan as it prepares options for President Trump - CNN

A decision to send additional American troops to Afghanistan, a possibility now being considered by the Trump White House, would provide a welcome boost to Special Operations activities there, a senior military official said Thursday.

Army Gen. Raymond A. Tony ThomasIII, the head of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), said that while no additional Special Operations troops are currently required, the introduction of more conventional troops, whose mission is focused on advising and supporting Afghan forces, would indirectly help special operators, who are tasked chiefly with tracking down al-Qaeda and other extremist fighters in a separate counterterrorism mission.

Giving testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Thomas suggested that an expanded training mission could lessen the need for U.S. Special Operations troops to conduct dangerous missions alongside local forces.

More conventional forces that would thicken the ability to advise and assist Afghan forces that would absolutely be to our benefit, he said.

[U.S. watchdog finds major internal flaws hampering Afghanistan war effort]

The generals remarks come as the White House considers steps to overhaul the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, where security has deteriorated more than 15 years after American troops were first sent to battle the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other militants.

Army Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has said that thousands of additional foreign troops are needed to help the Afghan government fend off a re-energized Taliban insurgency. Struggling to hold on to terrain in a conflict that U.S. officials have described as a stalemate, Afghanistans own forces are taking high casualties and grappling with persistent problems of corruption, desertion and skills gaps.

About three-quarters of the U.S. force of 8,400 stationed in Afghanistan is tasked with training and supporting local forces, while the remainder, largely Special Operations troops, take part in the counterterrorism mission.

In a sign of the challenges ahead, a Taliban attack killed more than 140 people at an Afghan army base last month shortly before Defense Secretary Jim Mattis paid a visit to evaluate conditions in the country.

Late last week, signaling the final stages of a policy review overseen by national security adviser H.R. McMaster, President Trumps top advisers met to discuss the way ahead. The president, who has not spoken extensively about the conflict in Afghanistan, is expected to weigh in ahead of a NATO meeting he will attend May25.

While President Obamas approach to Afghanistan, following his 2009-2011 troop surge, was focused in large part on limiting the U.S. military footprint there, the Trump administration appears willing to commit greater military resources.

In keeping with its emphasis on doling out military burdens among allied nations, it is also seeking an increase in the number of NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Officials are looking not only at a potential troop increase, but also, in keeping with a general push to provide military officials greater flexibility, possible changes to rules that guide U.S. operations there. If approved, those steps could allow U.S. troops to conduct operations with Afghan forces in a wider array of situations and possibly increase the use of American air power.

Theresa Whelan, a senior Pentagon official who testified alongside Thomas, said the Trump administration was actively looking at adjustments to its approach to Afghanistan.

I expect that these proposals will go to the president within the next week, and the intent is to do just that, to move beyond the stalemate, she said.

[U.S. commander in Afghanistan opens door to a few thousand more troops deploying there]

It is not clear whether the Trump administrations review will produce significant changes to the political strategy for Afghanistan. While the United States has strongly backed the countrys unity government, it became less active in recent years in seeking to broker a peace agreement with the Taliban than it had been earlier in the Obama administration.

Thomas suggested that the United States needed to articulate a clearer goal for its involvement in Afghanistan. I think the critical factor is the commitment the commitment to some enduring state that has not been described effectively in the past, he said.

The general spoke on an array of issues related to Special Operations activities, which account for 2percent of military spending and personnel but has been spared the budget and personnel cuts experienced by other areas of the military.

In written testimony, the general addressed what he said was SOCOMs growing focus on the threat posed by North Korea, which has made advances in its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

That has included maintaining a Special Operations presence on the Korean Peninsula and seeking means to ensure that SOCOM, recently put in charge of coordinating the U.S. response to threats from weapons of mass destruction, is ready to use its special operators effectively.

Original post:
Special Operations commander: More troops would aid Afghanistan fight - Washington Post