Mediaboss Marketing

For 16 years, the United States has tried to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan with a goal of preventing the war-torn country from once again being used as a launching pad for international terrorism as it was during the September 11 attacks.

But despite spending more than $600 billion and thousands of lives lost, American efforts in Afghanistan have largely fallen short of expectations and promises.

The situation in Afghanistan is incredibly shaky right now, said Lt. Col. Mike Waltz, a former Special Forces commander in Afghanistan and the Middle East. We are essentially partnered with the Afghans. And the Afghans are losing slowly.

PENTAGON TO SEND ALMOST 4,000 ADDITIONAL FORCES TO AFGHANISTAN, US OFFICIAL SAYS

As the Trump administration mulls its next move, experts say both Iran and Russia are actively trying to move in to shape Afghanistan in its favor.

Experts say the two American foes are trying to exert their influence over Afghanistans future as the U.S. debates what the new strategy should be for the U.S. mission there. According to U.S. and Afghan officials, both countries have stepped up their contacts with insurgent groups and are even training and arming them.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen John Nicholson Jr., has repeatedly warned about both countries growing influence.

Russia has become more assertive over the past year, overtly lending legitimacy to the Taliban to undermine NATO efforts and bolster belligerents using the false narrative that only the Taliban are fighting [ISIS], Gen. Nicholson told the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee in February. Similarly, neighboring Iran is providing support to the Taliban while also engaging the Afghan government over issues of water rights, trade, and security.

EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN MILITARY SUPPORT FOR AFGHAN TALIBAN IS GROWING

A few months later, one of the Pentagons top Generals issued a similar though more tempered warning.

"I believe what Russia is attempting to do is they are attempting to be an influential party in this part of the world," Gen. Joseph Votel, chief of U.S. Central Command, told American lawmakers in March. "I think it is fair to assume they may be providing some sort of support to [the Taliban] in terms of weapons or other things that may be there."

After initially losing territory during the surge of American troops six years ago, the Taliban is gaining ground in areas once controlled by the U.S.-led NATO coalition and Afghan security forces. ISIS has also established a foothold in several parts of the country, as well.

Insurgents have gained ground in the wake of President Obamas decision to withdraw U.S. combat forces at the end of 2014. Both groups have launched a string of deadly attacks across the country this summer, and Afghan security forces have sustained huge losses among their ranks.

GEN. KEANE: RUSSIA MOVING ARMS THROUGH IRAN TO TALIBAN IN AFGHANISTAN

Unlike, Afghanistans troublesome neighbor, Pakistan, which directly supports the Taliban, it is not clear the extent of Russia and Irans involvement with insurgent groups.

We havent any indications that there are sanctuaries in Iran right now, said Hamdullah Mohib, the Afghan Ambassador to the U.S. told Fox News, But the ones in Pakistan continue to be a problem for Afghanistan.

Pakistan has long been the chief supporter of the Taliban. Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the violent Taliban group, the Haqqani network, as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency,"

In order to deal with the growing problems in Afghanistan, the Pentagon has proposed sending roughly an additional 4,000 U.S. troops to train and assist Afghan Security forces.

"We are not winning in Afghanistan right now, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told Congress in June. And we will correct this as soon as possible."

But the Trump administration, which promised a new strategy by the middle of July, is resisting that plan. Some in the White House, including President Trump, have questioned whether winning in Afghanistan is even possible.

Some security analysts are worried given the deteriorating security situation that the Trump Administration will simply walk away from the 16 years of American investment in Afghanistan.

The stakes are high. What we cant do is just walk away, said Waltz, who argues that the troop number sent to Afghanistan is secondary, and not nearly as important, as a public statement of continued commitment from President Trump. President Trump will then be to Afghanistan what President Obama was to Iraq.

The White House is expected to announce a new policy in the coming days. Afghan officials hope it will be one of continued support.

The United States and Afghanistan are fighting a common enemy, Mohib said. We have had a long partnership so far. We are hoping to be able to continue that.

Conor Powell joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2009 and serves as a Jerusalem-based foreign correspondent.

Follow this link:
Russia, Iran pushing their influence in Afghanistan as ...

HARI SREENIVASAN, PBS NEWSHOUR WEEKEND: This week, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain offered a new strategy for the conflict in Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history. As part of next years defense budget, McCain calls for adding to the 8,400 American troops now deployed in Afghanistan and giving U.S. commanders greater authority to target Taliban insurgents and ISIS militants. McCain, an Arizona Republican, also criticized President Trump for having, quote, no strategy, unquote, after seven months in office.

The Pentagon has been pressing the White House for up to 5,000 more troops.

To discuss the options in Afghanistan, Im joined by Aaron OConnell, an associate professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin and the editor of Our Latest Longest War: Losing Hearts and Minds in Afghanistan.

OConnell is a former marine who served as an adviser to General David Petraeus when he commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan. He later served as an assistant to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and on the National Security Council in the Obama administration.

So, first, theres this premise of the question on why or why were not winning the war in Afghanistan, and you write in a recent op-ed, its not necessarily ours to win. Explain that.

AARON OCONNELL, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN: Yes. Well, the war in Afghanistan is actually part of a number of wars five, to be exact. And three of them predate American involvement in the country. The most crucial of these is a three-century-long fight inside the Pashtun tribe between Kabuli elites and Kandahari elites and then people from the rural areas of Afghanistan. So, thats been going on for a long time, and nothing we can do is really going to change it.

SREENIVASAN: Considering the amount of blood and treasure that weve spilled there so far, what has been working?

OCONNELL: Yes, its important to note some things have been working. Limited counterterrorism strikes against key officials have been quite successful. Weve killed Osama bin Laden. Weve neutered the leadership of al Qaeda. And every time a new leader of the Afghan Taliban is named, we typically get him in a matter of months. So, selective counterterrorism strikes against key leaders works quite well.

Weve also had some success improving local health and education in Afghanistan. Weve extended the life expectancy of the ordinary Afghan by a decade. Thats a real accomplishment.

But the efforts to defeat the Taliban have been much less successful as have our efforts to improve Afghan governance.

SREENIVASAN: Why havent they been as successful?

OCONNELL: Well, its a complicated picture, Hari. First of all, the Taliban is not a transnational terrorist movement. It has no aspiration to attack United States. Thats important for your listeners to know.

But what they do have is really everything they need to fight indefinitely in Afghanistan. They have money from opium. The country is awash in arms.

They have networks for intimidating detractors. They have sanctuaries in Pakistan. And they have an almost unlimited supply of new recruits from the Pashtun areas whose life narratives really begin and end with defending Islam and rejecting foreign rule.

So, were learning what the Russians and the British learned before us, which is that the Pashtuns of Afghanistan have much greater strategic patience than we do, and the efforts weve taken to try to destroy or neuter that insurgency have not been successful.

SREENIVASAN: What about the space that Afghanistan occupies and Im almost thinking geographically the type of support or lack of concern on the part of Pakistan, or the amount of resources that are coming even across from Iran?

OCONNELL: Its important to know that this is a very important region for the United States. It has Pakistan, and anything you do in Pakistan affects India. It has Iran. Russia is involved, as well.

The interesting thing is, weve spent three-quarters of a trillion dollars in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is the least important country for American interests in the region.

So, what were seeing here is actually a reuse of an old domino theory that some of your listeners might remember from Vietnam. Were in Afghanistan because we fear that losing in Afghanistan will precipitate state failure in Pakistan, a country with a fairly large radicalized Islamic population and nuclear weapons. So, the odd thing is that we are spending all of our time, attention and resources on Afghanistan when what were really concerned about is Pakistan. And furthermore, we are missing opportunities to partner with India.

SREENIVASAN: Is there a strategy there that would work? I mean, does John McCain have a better one than what the administration is putting out right now?

OCONNELL: Well, I dont know what the administration is putting out right now, and thats a big part of the problem. So, Senator McCain has made some very poignant and useful comments about what we should be doing in Afghanistan. Hes deeply invested, and a man with a true strategic wisdom about the U.S.s role in the world.

The really strange thing here is that were getting the fleshed out policy weve gotten on Afghanistan thus far is coming from a senator from Arizona. Its really important to note that what were doing in Afghanistan is not a military-only problem, and, therefore, theres only one man that can set our objectives there, and that man is the president. He needs to lead, and he hasnt led so far.

SREENIVASAN: Aaron OConnell from the University of Texas, Austin, thanks so much for joining us.

OCONNELL: Thank you.

Read more here:
Criticizing Trump, McCain proposes new Afghanistan strategy - PBS NewsHour

Major Wayne Owers was honoured three times by the Queen during his 27-year career

AN ARMY bomb disposal expert who saved countless lives in war-torn Afghanistan says he has been betrayed by the military after he was discharged while suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Major Wayne Owers was honoured three times by the Queen during his 27-year career and defused nearly 100 bombs in Afghanistan.

SWNS:South West News Service

PA:Press Association

PA:Press Association

But when the 46-year-old, originally from Whitnash, near Leamington in Warwickshire, asked for help tackling his nightmares and extreme anxiety from Army doctors, he was given a medical discharge.

He underwent two years of treatment and was showing signs of improvement but he was given amedical discharge and just 6,000 compensation rather than anon-operational posting.

He told the Mirror: The Army was my life but in my darkest hour when I most needed help I was told, You are no longer fit to serve.

I was mortified. It was a devastating blow. I could have continued serving.

In 2013 the Sun reported how Owers crawled forward in the middle of the battle to defuse a bomb in a school in Afghanistan.

When asked if they may be booby trapped and go off in his face when he touched them, the brave soldier grinned as he said: Probably not.

Simon Jones

Simon Jones

Major Owers received the Queens Commendation for Valuable Service after serving in the Iraq War and the Queens Gallantry Medal and the MBE for two tours in Afghanistan.

The dad-of-one described the pressure his unit faced and the horrific injuries some endured.

I have since been contacted by five other bomb disposal officers who have been suffering in the same way, he said.

He says the Ministry of Defences claim that it is serious about tackling PTSD is nonsense and says he knows soldiers who have lied about their recovery because they dont want to lose their jobs.

An Army spokesman said: We are absolutely committed to the mental health and wellbeing of soldiers and work hard to reduce the stigma associated with mental illness, encouraging those who need help to come forward.

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us attips@the-sun.co.ukor call 0207 782 4368

See the article here:
Brave Army officer who defused nearly 100 bombs in Afghanistan says he was dumped by MoD after suffering from ... - The Sun

Afghanistan has severely challenged every U.S. administration since the fall of 2001. The Trump administration is debating intensely what strategy, if any, might lead to more success than its predecessors achieved and turn around the stalemate on the ground in Afghanistan.

The media focus is largely on the troop numbers, tactics and costs being proposed to put the Taliban and its extremist bedfellows on the defensive and the positions of various U.S. policy makers including the president. A strategy for success, however, is much more complicated than just the issues surrounding security, vital as they are. There are at least seven pillars needed for a comprehensive strategy in Afghanistan: 1) military and security tactics and capacity-building; 2) Afghanistans domestic politics; 3) governance and economic performance; 4) Pakistans role; 5) options for a non-military solution; 6) international support; and 7) an effective U.S. policy and budgetary process. To only focus on the military pillar is a formula for misunderstanding. Neglecting any of the pillars can lead the enterprise to fail.

Supporters of a continued U.S. role in Afghanistan argue that it is in the national interest to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a base for terrorists. They argue that success is possible with a sustained, vigorous, multi-year effort without deadlines to bolster Afghan government capacity and to generate sufficient pressures on the Taliban and others to open paths to a non-military solution. This approach, they argue, will prevent terrorists from being able to operate internationally from Afghanistan.

As the U.S. policy debate unfolds, it is important to understand that a pathway to success demands a multifaceted and integrated strategy which addresses security issues well, while deploying effective diplomacy and non-military assistance.

Providing Military Support and Building Afghan Capacity

The Taliban gained ground militarily over the last two years. The fighting revealed serious shortcomings in the Afghan military, security and intelligence forces. Nevertheless, many Afghan troops and commanders fought with success and suffered very heavy casualties resisting the Taliban. The Afghan military clearly needed more support from U.S. airpower, intelligence, and Special Forces to counter the Taliban attacks and with that, they have held territory recently. They will need that support and advice for some time to come. In the interim, there is a clear need to clean out poorly performing and corrupt senior officers (in the army, the Interior Ministry and the intelligence service), to add an effective U.S. advisory presence closer to the front lines, and to undertake a serious revamp of training and capacity building programs, including addressing the airpower needs of the Afghan forces. The cleaning out of the Afghan military leadership has already begun with the support of Afghan president Ghani, but it will take time and persistence, as will a revitalized capacity building effort once properly resourced. This cluster of issues was at the core of the U.S. militarys request for more troops earlier this year, and is central to the debate in the Trump administration, which reportedly has included consideration of using private military contractors.

Assuring Afghan Domestic Political Support

Continued here:
7 Pillars for Success in Afghanistan - The National Interest Online

Updated 2 hours ago

As President Trump wrestles with America's 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 Pakistan's frontier regions to establish sanctuaries.

Similarly, while the Taliban's 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, America's 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 Lowenstein's cutting remarks about Richard Nixon's policies. While Lowenstein acknowledged that he understood those, like Sen. George Aiken, who said we should win and get out, he said he couldn't understand Nixon's 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.

Taliban's return to power

First, the Taliban's 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, Pakistan's military, especially its intelligence arm, is already thought to be controlled by radical Islamists.

Given terrorism's 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 America's goals does not require remaking Afghanistan's 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 India's 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 America's 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? - Tribune-Review