Mediaboss Marketing

Mohammad Mohaqeq has been doing something unusual in Afghan politics: posting pictures of wife Waheeda on social media.

In one recent image, the senior government official poses beside her and their 7-year-old daughter, Hadiya, in front of a crystal-clear lake in the northern province of Bamian.

In the patriarchal world of Afghanistan, where most women still wear the burqa in public, the prominent placement of females in the photographs caused a stir.

But like other politicians in this young democracy, Mohaqeq, a former leader of the anti-Soviet jihad, or resistance, who is now a deputy to the countrys chief executive, Abdullah Abdullah, has started to realize the importance of appealing to voters who embrace the idea of social liberalization.

The time for women not to appear in society is long gone, Mohaqeq, 62, said in an interview at his home in Kabul, the Afghan capital. Women participate in society, politics and economic affairs. In my view they cannot be prevented from appearing on social media.

The wives of leading politicians generally have not been in the spotlight in Afghanistan. Former President Hamid Karzais wife, Zinat, a doctor, rarely spoke in public during the 13 years she was first lady.

Not that Mohaqeq is exactly a symbol of modernism. He has four wives and 23 children.

He said raising the profiles of the women in his life was also part of a plan to nominate one of them to run for parliament this year.

He declined to say which wife, but presumably it is Waheeda, the one whose photograph appears most often in his Facebook posts. He has also posted a picture of himself with another wife, whom he accompanied on a medical trip to Uzbekistan.

Waheeda Mohaqeq, a 42-year-old mother of six, acknowledged an interest in politics but said it would be her husbands decision: I have to wait for his OK.

She is his third wife and the most educated, having studied English literature in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif in the 1990s. A university classmate, Dawood Rahjo, recalled her as a vocal presence on campus.

She used to make speeches in almost all official university gatherings, programs or exhibitions, he said.

She met Mohaqeq in 1994 when he participated in an event at the university. She was known as a very active and courageous student, so it was her choice to marry Mr. Mohaqeq, Rahjo said.

Mohaqeq began using Facebook in 2010 and now has more than 90,000 followers. He said Facebook is 100 times more effective than the real media for communicating with ordinary citizens.

Photos of his wife attract dozens of messages, some of which are critical. One Facebook comment said that Mohaqeq and other ethnic Hazara politicians were part of a cloistered political establishment that has failed to cultivate a younger generation of men and women to replace it and that the photographs of his daughter were simply a political tactic.

There are thousands of Hadiyas among the Hazara people, but unfortunately theyve all been let down and they have no one to support them, the post said.

Waheeda Mohaqeq, who had not commented publicly on the issue before this article, brushed off the criticism.

People may have both good and bad opinions about us, but the majority of the comments are positive about my presence on social media, she said.

Rula Ghani, wife of the current president, Ashraf Ghani, has been somewhat more outspoken. Before Abdul Rashid Dostum, a vice president, left the country in May amid accusations that he had a man beaten and sodomized, Rula Ghani said he was in effect under house arrest a rare political statement from a first lady.

Other female relatives have begun appearing in photos with politicians.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former insurgent leader who recently agreed to make peace with the Afghan government, gave a speech at the presidential palace in May with two women sitting prominently in the row behind him.

An official with Hekmatyars political party, Hezb-i-Islami, identified them as Hekmatyars wife and daughter.

Mr. Hekmatyar loves for his female family members to accompany him on trips, meetings and gatherings, said the official, who declined to be quoted by name because the issue was sensitive.

Maryam Sama, a social activist and TV anchor, offered another reason that some Afghan political leaders are challenging the traditions of this conservative Muslim society when it comes to women: staying in the good graces of the international community upon which the economy still depends.

I doubt that jihadis like Mohaqeq believe in womens rights, but they show off their families on social media for their political purposes, she said.

Regardless of the motive, she added, it raises hope that these politicians would get used to the presence of women in society.

Faizy is a special correspondent. Times staff writer Shashank Bengali in Mumbai, India, contributed to this report.

Original post:
An Afghan leader caused a stir by posting pictures of his wife on Facebook - Los Angeles Times

Updated at 5:35 p.m. ET

An Afghan soldier opened fire on his U.S. counterparts on Saturday, killing three Americans and wounding at least one other. A spokesman for the provincial governor of Nangarhar, in eastern Afghanistan, confirmed that the incident occurred during an operation in the district of Achin, on the Pakistan border.

"In (a) joint US-Afghan military operation ... American troops were killed when an Afghan member of army commando opened fire on them," Attaullah Khogyani told Al-Jazeera earlier in the day. "The Afghan commando was also killed in counterattack."

The Associated Press reports that the Taliban has claimed responsibility for the shooting, noting that the militant group released a statement saying one of its loyalists had joined the Afghan military "just to attack foreign forces."

According to the wire service, the Pentagon says the U.S. military is "aware of an incident in eastern Afghanistan."

The Pentagon confirmed the number of deaths in a statement Saturday evening:

"Three U.S. soldiers were killed in eastern Afghanistan today. One U.S. soldier was wounded and has been evacuated for medical treatment. Next of kin notification is underway.

"This incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as appropriate."

Vice President Pence addressed the incident during an appearance Saturday.

"On my way here, I was informed that U.S. service members were killed and wounded at an attack in Afghanistan," Pence said Saturday at a speech in Milwaukee. "The president and I have been briefed. The details of this attack will be forthcoming. But suffice it to say, when heroes fall, Americans grieve. And our thoughts and prayers are with the families of these American heroes."

As Jennifer Glasse reports for NPR's Newscast unit, Achin has been a major base for Islamic State militants.

"U.S. special forces have been working on the ground there with Afghan forces," Jennifer notes, "and in April, the United States dropped its [most powerful] non-nuclear bomb in the area to destroy tunnels being used by ISIS fighters and killed dozens of them, according to locals in the area."

She adds that shootings like the one that occurred Saturday "are called insider attacks or green on blue with Afghans wearing green shooting Americans and NATO soldiers."

And it's not the first time this year that one has occurred, as NBC News explains: "The attack follows one in March in which three American soldiers were shot and wounded by an Afghan soldier on a base in Helmand province, officials said. That Afghan soldier was also killed following the incident."

Reuters reports that shortly before Saturday's attack, at least three members of the Afghan security forces were killed by U.S. aircraft during an overnight raid in Helmand.

"We would like to express our deepest condolences to the families of the [Afghan Border Police] members affected by this unfortunate incident," a U.S. military spokesman said in a statement, according to the news service.

NPR's Amy Held notes that while the U.S. officially withdrew from Afghanistan in 2014, roughly 8,400 troops remain in the country and the Trump administration has been considering requests to increase those troop levels.

Continued here:
At Least 3 US Soldiers Killed In 'Insider Attack' In Afghanistan - NPR

Donald Trump missed the opportunity to become a General Patton-style military commander and glorious war hero back in the Vietnam era. He surely wouldhave been the greatest ever in history!

But he says, alas, some unspecified foot problem (or something or other) kept him from the privilege of actually having the chance togo fight in that war. Bad luck, Im sure. But now that the Donald is thecommander in chief, his inner warrior has been given a second chance to bloom, and this time hes fully enlisted. In recent weeks, President Trump has escalateda running war of words against Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, bombed the European leaders of NATO with explosive charges that theyre unworthy of his support, launched a fierce new barrage of tough rhetoric in his extralegal offensive to ban all travel to the U.S. by anyone from six Muslim nations, and opened an entirely new battlefront by attacking the mayor of London with one of his Twitter missiles.

In last years presidential campaign, Trump declared with typical modesty,Theres nobody bigger or better at the military than I am. Well, Im certainly no expert on war, but if a president is going to pick a mess of foreign fights, wouldnt it be better strategically speaking to pick on actual enemies rather than on Americas allies? After all, there might come a time when we need friends to stand with us.

In a twist of historic irony, it looks like Trump and his military team might need those European allies sooner than they figured. Trumps national security chief and the Pentagon are pushing a new strategy for Americas long and horribly messy war but it depends on our NATO allies sending some of their troops into the fight. Oops, how awkward for the impetuous tweeter in chief.

President Trump might have dodged military service in his youth, but he certainly is bellicose, likes to issue commands and is constantly firing off militant tweets at anyone he perceives to be an enemy.

Now he and his White House full of military commanders are pondering the launchof a real shooting war. Actually, he would be attempting to achieve battlefield glory by picking up and extending what at first was George Bushs war, then Barack Obamas war. The place is Afghanistan, and the strategy is to shove more American soldiers (none of whomwill be named Trump) into that brutish, interminable hellhole.

Yes, that mess is still boiling, despite President Barack Obamas pledge to end U.S. involvement by 2012. After 16 years, after more than 2,000 Americans have been killed and 20,000 others maimed, after more than $800 billion has been shoveled into it, 8,400 of our troops are still there, the killing continues and we taxpayers keep pumping billions of dollars into the insanity. For all of that, the Taliban forces weve been trying to defeat are stronger than ever, al-Qaida and the Islamic State have gained strength and the Afghan government were supporting is corrupt, inept and despised.

Nonetheless, Trump is violating a basic rule of civilian control of the military: Never ask the generals if they need more resources. This president has surrounded himself with generals and surrendered crucial decision-making authority to them. What can a mini-surge of 5,000 more soldiers do besides assure more U.S. casualties? We werent able to win in Afghanistan when 100,000 of our troops were there, so what do we win by this so-called strategy?

Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican of North Carolina, has introduced a nonpartisan bill to defund Trumps war in Afghanistan. It is co-sponsored by members of both parties. It will be up to House Speaker Paul Ryan to bring up the bill for a vote. If Trump cant tell us why his new strategy will work, we should tell him no. Call Speaker Ryan and tell him to bring up House of Representatives 1666 for a vote. And call your representatives and tell them to defund Trumps war in Afghanistan.

View original post here:
Our bellicose president wants to continue a 16-year quagmire in Afghanistan - Salon

OTTAWA -- Canada is considering a NATO request to send police trainers to Afghanistan, three years after the military mission officially ended, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says.

The request came from the U.S. through NATO, and could involve either civilian police trainers like the RCMP, or military trainers working with Afghan police, a defence official added.

Sajjan says Canada is "looking at all aspects of support" for Afghanistan -- though he ruled out the country as a destination for Canadian peacekeepers since it's not a UN mission.

"We've actually had an ask, but it was for police trainers in Afghanistan," Sajjan said in an interview with Evan Solomon, host of CTV's Question Period.

"We are actually still committed to Afghanistan. We've provided the funding, whether it's for development" or salaries for security forces in the country, he said.

From 2014 to 2017, Canada committed $227 million in international development programs in Afghanistan, and $330 million from 2015 to 2018 in support for the Afghan National Security Forces, which include the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police.

Sajjan says Canada can't look at any country in isolation.

"This is what coalitions are for, multilateralism is for. I'm in constant discussions with my counterparts on all the various threats, whether it's at NATO or the counter-DAESH meetings," he said, using another name for the Islamic State.

"We will always look at the various requests, but the thing is when we have the discussions, it's not about just one nation ... stepping up and saying, 'I'll do this.' It's about working together."

Peacekeeping mission 'on the table'

Last August, Sajjan announced Canada would devote 600 troops and $450 million over three years to a peacekeeping mission. He later toured several African countries and said he would announce the mission by the end of the year, but six months into 2017 there is still no word on where it will be.

A mission somewhere in the world "is on the table. We're committed to peace support operations," Sajjan said, citing a change in leadership at the UN and the new president of the U.S. as reasons for the delay.

"I've had discussions with [the UN], things looked very good... It's not about just sending troops. How can we now look at the current environment and bring our unique skillset to the table?"

While Sajjan ruled out Afghanistan as a peacekeeping destination, Richard Fadden, a former top civil servant at the Department of National Defence and former national security adviser to the prime minister, says having shed blood and spent a great deal of money on the country, it would make sense to return.

"Afghanistan has deteriorated quite a bit over the last few years," he said.

"I think if we were going anywhere to make a contribution, broadly speaking, to peace in the world, Afghanistan would be a good place to go. There are not that many other places where we could make a difference that would not result in ... our being involved in a massive quagmire."

Retired Gen. Tom Lawson, a former chief of the defence staff, says he prefers Afghanistan to some of the African countries Canada could end up, like Mali or the Democratic Republic of Congo. Both would carry significant risks for Canadian Armed Forces personnel.

"If it keeps us out of other places, [like] in Africa, I'd be delighted as a former chief of defence," Lawson told Solomon.

"So Afghanistan is a place that Canadians have invested both money and blood. We continue to invest money there. If a return was in Canadian defence future, it would be to a familiar zone."

Over the 12-year mission, 158 Canadian troops were killed, as well as a diplomat, a journalist and two civilian contractors, according to a tally by The Canadian Press.

Read more:
NATO wants Canadians back in Afghanistan: Sajjan - CTV News

External Affairs In aclear articulation of a new Afghan policy, James Mattis and Rex Tillerson have virtually ruled out any political settlement with the Taliban.

US defence secretary James Mattis (left) and secretary of state Rex Tillerson. Credit: Reuters

Washington: The Trump administration appears to be inching towards a clear commitment to Afghanistan devoid of deadlines and fuzziness a development that will be welcomed both in Kabul and New Delhi.

US defence secretary James Mattis and secretary of state Rex Tillerson laid out the broad contours of the new policy, virtually ruling out a political settlement with the Taliban. It was the clearest articulation so far of the trajectory Washington intends to follow.

If the policy review currently underway sustains this line of thinking, it would be a definite break from the Obama administrations policy of promoting a peace process with the Taliban in the belief that a military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan was impossible.

This line of thinking was also promoted by Pakistan, which has harboured the Taliban leadership over the years to serve its own ends and not the cause of peace, according to independent analysts.

But it now appears senior officials in the Trump administration want to end what the top US commander in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, described as a stalemate in testimony beforethe US Congress in February.

Speaking in Sydney at the annual US-Australia inter-ministerial dialogue, Mattis described the bottom line in Afghanistan in these words: We are not going to surrender civilisation to people who cannot win at the ballot box.

Tillerson, standing by his side, added, what we do understand is we can never allow Afghanistan to become a platform for terrorism and the US commitment is to ensure that it never becomes a safe haven for terrorists to launch attacks against the civilised world or against any other part of the world or any of their neighbours.

Casting the Taliban as uncivilised by implication is in itself a shift because USstate department diplomats and their contractors have been at pains not to describe them in pejorative terms. Certain Taliban leaders were never put on the UN terror list in the hope that they would come to the negotiating table.

Several years on, however, the peace process hasnt materialised. US analysts believe Pakistan has been leading Washingtondown a garden path for years, claiming at times the Taliban leaders dont live there, when they clearly do, and at others pretending it has no control over them this, even as it organises and oversees the leadership succession of the Quetta Shura.

But now indications are that Washington may be shifting gears.

The strong statements from the two top Trump officials came as Kabul was recovering from one of the worst terrorist attacks in the heavily guarded diplomatic enclave, which claimed 150 lives. Afghan officials said the May 31 attack was carried out by the Haqqani network with help from Pakistans intelligence service, the ISI.

On March 8, terrorists had targeted a military hospital in Kabul, killing 49 people in an attack lasting hours. Although the Islamic State claimed the attack, Afghan officials believe it was the Haqqanis. General Nicholson called it an unspeakable crime.

The upsurge in attacks on Afghans has lent an element of urgency to the ongoing war. Nicholson has argued for more US troops and it appears that Mattis, a retired general who was commander of CENTCOMin the Obama administration, may be listening.

Mattis said in Sydney the US was up against an enemy that knows they cannot win at the ballot box thats why they use bombs, because ballots would ensure they never had a role to play. He promised to stand by the Afghan people.

As Mattis and Tillerson were in Australia, their deputies, Lisa Curtis and Laura Miller, were returning from Kabul after meeting President Ashraf Ghani, a leader stuck between the impossible tribal politics of his country and relentless bloodletting by terrorists.

Ghani sent out a series of emotional tweets on June 6, including one in which he wondered about Pakistans motives. Our challenge is that we cannot figure out what is it that PAK wants. What will it take to convince PAK that a stable #AFG helps them?

Mohammad Taqi, a Pakistani American analyst who knows Afghanistan well, called the statement by Mattis a tectonic shift in US policy of the last 16 years. Stalemate is not just in the battle theatre but also in the policy arena. Pakistan has effectively held the US to a draw in Afghanistan, he said at the Hudson Institute on Tuesday.

It is time to stare reality in the face and stop tolerating Pakistans duplicitous policy as the Obama administration did, Taqi said. Taliban, Haqqanis, al-Qaeda, ISIS are fifty shades of jihadist grey. And none is amenable to a political solution.

The US has to recognise that Pakistans strategic calculus sees Afghanistan as a client state. The rest is feigned paranoia, especially its claims about being squeezed from sides India from the east and Afghanistan from the west.

He urged the US not to appease Pakistan because no amount of Fulbright scholarships or rotations at CENTCOM will change Rawalpindis security paradigm.

US policy must reflect that Afghan lives matter, said Taqi.

Seema Sirohi is a Washington DC-based commentator.

More:
Strong Words from James Mattis on Afghanistan, But Will They Hold? - The Wire