Tag: Taliban

Categories
Quick Analysis

Negotiations, and the Larger Threat

Should Venezuela’s Chavistas and Afghanistan’s Taliban have a role in the new governments that will soon take power? That’s the thinking of the foreign policy establishment, as well as the mantra of the chattering classes.  They may both be wrong.

Put the issue in context. Both the Caracas socialists and the Islamic extremists seeking a role in Kabul have engaged in actions which are reprehensible and defy concepts of human rights.  Neither have presented any evidence indicating that, given a seat at the governance table, they would amend their ways. The allies faced a similar challenge during the Second World War. Some questioned whether the final, costly pushes to defeat the Axis powers could be avoided by allowing some level of influence for Japan’s militarists and Germany’s National Socialists. They chose not to take the easy way out and pushed on to total victory.

Elevating the Taliban to the status of a negotiating partner (a process begun under the Obama Administration) has given it a very substantial boost in its bid to return to power after America withdraws. The Taliban is best known as the organization that sheltered Al Qaeda when it launched the 9/11/01 assault against the American homeland.

Amnesty International describes the Taliban actions: “Mass murder, gang rapes and house-to-house searches by Taliban death squads are just some of the harrowing civilian testimonies emerging from Kunduz as Afghan forces today claimed to have regained control of key areas of the northern city, Amnesty International said. The organization has spoken to numerous people, the majority of them women…Women human rights defenders from Kunduz spoke of a “hit list” being used by the Taliban to track down activists and others, and described how fighters had raped and killed numerous civilians.”

What would the Taliban do as part of a new government? James Clapper, the former U.S. Director of National Intelligence, speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2015, noted that the Taliban is “… Reliant on Afghanistan’s opiate trade as a key domestic source of funding, the Taliban will be able to exploit increasing opium poppy cultivation and potential heroin production for ready revenue. The Taliban has publicly touted the end of the mission of the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) and coalition drawdown as a sign of its inevitable victory, reinforcing its commitment to returning to power.”

Even if the Taliban restricted its activities against either American interests or a new unity government in Kabul, there are substantive concerns about whether its pattern cheapest cialis soft Gynecomastia is physiologic in infancy, adolescence and in middle-aged to much older males. On the face of it, this sounds like really encouraging news. viagra generika Impotency is a primary symptom of heart disease, diabetes, elevated blood pressure or cholesterol. no prescription levitra Moreover, companies which sell these herbal products online do not include any hidden cialis prices charges as the local suppliers. of atrocities, particularly those against women, would change. 

The actions of the Maduro government in Venezuela also shock the conscience, and the question of whether officials from that regime should be allowed to have a role in a future Caracas Administration must take into account their participation in human rights violations.

According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:

“The most significant human rights issues included extrajudicial killings by security forces, including government sponsored “colectivos”; torture by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; widespread arbitrary detentions; and political prisoners. The government unlawfully interfered with privacy rights, used military courts to try civilians, and ignored judicial orders to release prisoners. The government routinely blocked signals, interfered with the operations, or shut down privately owned television, radio, and other media outlets. The law criminalized criticism of the government, and the government threatened violence and detained journalists critical of the government, used violence to repress peaceful demonstrations, and placed legal restrictions on the ability of NGOs to receive foreign funding. Other issues included interference with freedom of movement; establishment of illegitimate institutions to replace democratically elected representatives; pervasive corruption and impunity among all security forces and in other national and state government offices, including at the highest levels; violence against women, including lethal violence; trafficking in persons; and the worst forms of child labor, which the government made minimal efforts to eliminate.”

Can Washington, in good conscience, be party to the empowerment of powers so inclined?

There is another side of the argument, one that has considerable merit.  For three decades, America’s military resources have been worn out by the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The Trump Administration has succeeded in eliminating the ISIS Caliphate, reducing (but, of course, not eliminating) the terrorist threat. During those years, both Russia and China have dramatically modernized and strengthened their armed forces, both conventional and strategic. At the same time, America’s defenses have been overused, exhausted, underfunded and obsolescent. By winding down the nation’s activities in Afghanistan and reducing the potential of military intervention in Venezuela, more support could given to the urgent need to counter the growing threats from Beijing and Moscow.

Photo: U.S. troops in Afghanistan (Defense Dept.)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Aid to Pakistan, and Other Policy Mistakes, Part 2

Some level of Washington’s outrage with Pakistan that led to the cutting of aid  may date back to 2016, when Abubakar Siddique, writing in Gandhara, reported that “Sartaj Aziz, Pakistan’s adviser for foreign affairs, admitted that “Islamabad is housing senior Taliban leaders and has influence over them,” despite the fact his government had previously “vehemently denied giving shelter to Taliban leaders after their hard-line regime crumbled in late 2001…Aziz  told participants at a Washington think tank event that Islamabad holds sway over the Afghan Taliban because the insurgent leaders and their families live in Pakistan and ‘get some medical facilities.’”

The Obama Administration may have set an example that induced Islamabad to deal with the Taliban as a legitimate political entity. In a 2014 American Enterprise Institute  study, Ahmad K. Majidar pointed out that “After taking office in January 2009, President Barack Obama argued that ‘there will also be no peace without reconciliation,’ and negotiation with the Taliban became the main political pillar of Washington’s strategy in Afghanistan.”

Majidyar pointed out that Pakistan sought to promote its influence over a future Afghanistan regime by enhancing its relationship with the Taliban, even assassinating and arresting Taliban leaders who held back channel talks with the Afghanistan government. “At present,” he wrote, “Taliban leaders… have no incentives to cut ties with the Pakistani military and risk death or marginalization. On the contrary, the Pakistani military and the Taliban, especially the Haqqani network, see their relationship as a strategic necessity. Unless the Pakistani military believes that the costs of supporting the Taliban are greater than the benefits, it is unlikely to take any significant action to dismantle terrorist sanctuaries on its soil or force the group to make peace with Kabul.”

Someone told me once that she has sildenafil 25mg her period. All of them are called cheapest tadalafil india . Undoubtedly, erectile dysfunction medicines generic cialis for sale are effective when it comes to male’s sexual health. Frustration, embarrassment, fear of failure, disappointment and despair is what all he gets with this sexual condition. buy viagra tabs The Obama Administration apparent dismissal of the concept of an American victory in the war against the Taliban may have also discouraged Pakistan. An American Interest article by Paul Miller, points out that “In contrast to his campaign rhetoric, Obama spent the rest of his presidency carefully avoiding saying that the United States aimed to ‘defeat’ the Taliban or ‘win’ the war. Rather like Lyndon Johnson 45 years earlier, the President escalated a war while simultaneously doubting whether it could be won…President Obama spent nearly his entire presidency talking about withdrawing from Afghanistan…the deadline emboldened the Taliban and undermined the surge.”

Obama’s negotiations with the Taliban was equally unsettling to the Kabul government. A 2012 Heritage Society study noted that “the lack of transparency surrounding current U.S. talks with the Taliban has raised concern among parts of Afghan civil society that the U.S. is straying from these parameters and is considering striking a closed-door deal with the Taliban in order to justify a rapid U.S. troop withdrawal, which would sacrifice the hard-won human rights and security gains made over the past decade. During its rule over Afghanistan in the late 1990s, the Taliban forbade girls and women from attending school, holding jobs, or leaving home without a male companion. The Taliban also conducted systematic human rights abuses against the ethnic minority Hazara community, including two civilian massacres that resulted in the murders of nearly 200 Hazaras in 2000 and 2001. The Taliban regularly carried out public executions and floggings at stadiums and banned television, music, and the Internet.  While the media has reported on sporadic contacts between the U.S. government and Taliban leaders over the past two years, the substance of the discussions and the process under which they are taking place have been shrouded in mystery…”

Cutting aid to Pakistan in response to its contacts with the Taliban was appropriate and overdue. But in doing so, the mistakes made by the Obama Administration which played at least some part in the thinking of the Islamabad government should not be overlooked nor forgotten.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Afghanistan Problems More Dangerous

The United Nations envoy for Afghanistan, Tadamichi Yamamoto, has pointed out . both some progress and the severe challenges in that nation.

While the Government has committed to holding parliamentary elections which should be “fair, inclusive and transparent by the Afghan people,” the Taliban retains extensive military capabilities. It’s extreme views on women also put a damper on the fairness of any forthcoming election.

“The deteriorating security situation remains of great concern,” notes Yamamoto. He urged the Taliban to enter peace talks without preconditions and warning against attacks by foreign fighters including ISIS.

Last year, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA)  recorded the worst number of civilian casualties since record-keeping began nearly a decade ago. Deteriorating security also led to the highest-ever level of internal displacement in 2016. More than 650,000 Afghans were displaced. Returns from Pakistan exceeded 620,000 people. Displacements and returns for 2017 are likely to remain at these levels.

Yamamoto notes that due in part to the worsening security situation over the past two years, service delivery has become increasingly difficult. “We have witnessed some downward trends in key indicators, such as access to health clinics and education facilities,” he said.

As reported by the New York Analysis of Policy and Government  in February, Russia has reached out to the Taliban. A senior official of that terrorist group told Reuters in early December that Russia’s relationship with the Taliban began in 2007, as Moscow shared the Taliban’s objective of forcing all U.S. troops to swiftly withdraw from Afghanistan.

A visit to your local chiropractor could help you safely and effectively manage your shoulder pain and dysfunction. cialis levitra generika People are facing cialis line prescription erectile dysfunction but are simply unaware of the thought that ladies could go through from sexual complications. In such disorders, a person must consult a doctor before buying Tadalafil pills online if you feel embarrassed in discussing your sexual problems with a short period of time. cute-n-tiny.com cheap viagra online Although, the side effects of Oral Steroid use represent high force per unit area, changes within the body’s system, enlarged prostates, and cute-n-tiny.com cheapest levitra excretory organ issues then on. “The official end of the U.S. war in Afghanistan in 2014 did not cause Russia to distance itself from the Taliban…Critics of Russian foreign policy argue that Putin’s outreach to the Taliban is a cynical ploy to undermine the legitimacy of President Ashraf Ghani’s U.S.-backed government. Some Afghan policymakers and General John Nicholson, a leading U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, have publicly given credibility to this contention…Citing a high-level Taliban official The Daily Beast reported in October 2015 that Moscow also encouraged Tajik intelligence operatives to facilitate the shipment of Russian arms to the Taliban.”

A Foreign Affairs analysis points out that “Trump inherits a more challenging situation in Afghanistan than his predecessor did. …Several other countries, including Iran and Russia, have also stepped up communication with, and provided limited material support to, the Taliban…Afghanistan’s national unity government remains weak and hamstrung by corruption…

Former U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, gave his views on the Taliban’s strength in a statement  to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2015

“The Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF)…will require continued international security sector support and funding to stave off an increasingly aggressive Taliban insurgency…Without international funding, the ANSF will probably not remain a cohesive or viable force. The Taliban will probably remain largely cohesive…and sustain its countrywide campaign to take territory in outlying areas and steadily reassert influence over significant portions of the Pashtun countryside, positioning itself for greater territorial gains …The Taliban has publicly touted the end of the mission of the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) and coalition drawdown as a sign of its inevitable victory, reinforcing its commitment to returning to power.”

In his February joint address to Congress, President Trump promised to “demolish and destroy” terrorist groups. The fight in Afghanistan will prove to be the most difficult due to the number of terrorist groups operating in the area.  It will also be the most important, because in the absence of a western military presence, one of those terrorist organizations could gain access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

Writing in the National Interest Akhilesh Pillalamarri describes the problem: “Although Pakistan argues that its nuclear weapons are well-guarded, many experts are not so sure, pointing out that the Taliban and other militants have frequently struck at supposedly secure military bases with impunity. More worrisome, though, is Pakistan’s history of proliferation, which increases the chance that one day some element or the other in the Pakistani military will provide nuclear materials to an even more dangerous third party…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

What to Do About Afghanistan

The list of foreign and defense policy errors over the past eight years is lengthy and serious.  None was so clearly evident as the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a move which destabilized a nation on a slow path to stability, and allowed ISIS to grow into an international danger.

A similar situation is arising in Afghanistan. While U.S. participation there has been lengthy and costly, a similar, total withdrawal of western forces could produce results as consequential as that which occurred in Iraq.

In May of 2014, President Obama announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

Providing advanced notice of a departure date was correctly seen as a major diplomatic and military blunder on the part of the White House.

While the Obama Administration stated that it supports the current government in Kabul, the fact that it opened talks with the Taliban in 2011 reduced credibility for that position. Several years ago, The BBC reported that the Taliban had cut off the fingers of at least eleven Afghans who participated in that nations’ presidential run-off election. The terrorists did not want the voters to participate in that exercise in democracy.

In addition to the legal issues surrounding the White House’s decision to negotiate, very significant moral questions abound, as well as matters of diplomatic precedent.  Washington had, in the past, held to a wise policy of not negotiating with terrorists. To do so invited more acts of terror by groups and individuals who see those acts as a path to extorting demands from governments. The Obama Administration abandoned the precedent of not negotiating with terrorists, and did so without consulting Congress, or with much discussion with the American public.

By elevating the Taliban to the status of a negotiating partner, it gave that terrorist organization a very substantial boost in its bid to return to power after America withdraws. Insurgent bombings rose as U.S. troops reduced operations.

It levitra prices relaxes the blood arteries around the genital organ to allow more blood flow to cause an erection. Many therapists, psychologists and mental health viagra online in india professionals use terms like psychotherapy and cognitive behaviour, however the average person isn’t familiar with the meaning of these psychology-related terms. Men can easily prevent sexual weakness and weak ejaculation discount cialis prices find over here now is by consuming foods like bananas, oranges, beets, melon, papayas, apricots, raisins, prunes, dates, peas, turkey and fish. look at this now viagra 25 mg In addition to helping to soothe achiness, the proper cream is going to enhance the health of your beloved companion. In July 2016, Obama modified his withdrawal stance, and decided to keep 8,400 U.S. service members in country through the end of his term.

Now, President Trump faces the difficult decision of whether to continue the withdrawal, or to take a different strategy of “surging” forces in an attempt to substantially defeat the Taliban and prevent their takeover after western forces withdraw.

In a Washington Post article, former CIA Director and CENTCOM commander David Petraeus, who commanded coalition forces in Afghanistan from 2010 to 2011, along with co-author Mike O’Hanlon, criticized the end of 2016 deadline established by Obama, noting “Unfortunately, having displayed such patience, the president [assumed] that neither his successor nor the American public has the desire — or stomach — to continue even a modest U.S. effort in Afghanistan after 2016… This …raises considerable questions… We can schedule an end to our role in that nation’s conflict, but we cannot schedule an end to the war there or an end to the threat from al-Qaeda, the Islamic State or other extremist elements of the global jihad. Moreover, the Afghan political leadership and public overwhelmingly want us to stay.”

According to the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan, “Afghanistan needs a stable security environment to prevent it from again becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda or other terrorists. More than half of all U.S. reconstruction dollars since 2002 have gone toward building, equipping, training, and sustaining the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF). However, the ANDSF has not yet been capable of securing all of Afghanistan and has lost territory to the insurgency. As of August 28, 2016, USFOR-A reported that only 63.4% of the country’s districts were under Afghan government control or influence, a reduction from the 72% percent as of November 27, 2015. Capability gaps in key areas such as intelligence, aviation, and logistics are improving, but still hinder effectiveness.

Effectively diminishing the Taliban’s power would necessarily raise the difficult issue of pursuing it to its safe havens in Pakistan. According to the Pentagon in its latest Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan Report, “The security situation in Afghanistan continues to be dominated by a resilient insurgency; but the Afghan government remains in control of all major population centers and key lines of communication, and the ANDSF continues to deny the Taliban strategic ground throughout the country. Although the Taliban maintained a higher-than-usual operational tempo over the winter, overall levels of violence this reporting period were consistent with historical trends of a seasonal decrease in violence over the winter months and an uptick leading into the traditional spring and summer fighting season. Over the last six months, both ANDSF and insurgent casualties have increased, continuing their upward trend from the previous reporting period. Increased insurgent fighting in urban areas has also contributed to record-high civilian casualties, primarily caused by insurgent and extremist groups…

“Although al Qaeda’s core leadership in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region has been degraded, elements continue to seek safe haven on both sides of the border to regenerate and conduct attack planning. The continued development of an al Qaeda affiliate in the region, al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS), highlights the dynamic nature of the terrorist and militant landscape in the region, posing risks to the mission and to U.S. interests…Pakistan must play a role in reducing the threat from terrorist and militant groups in the region. Consistent mid-level military-to-military dialogue between Afghanistan and Pakistan on specific issues, such as the shared threat from IS-K, and occasional discussions at higher levels of the military and government early in the reporting period were encouraging. However, sustained Pakistani efforts to pressure the Haqqani Network and the Taliban and to disrupt active threat streams are necessary to help decrease violence in the region, to reduce the threat posed by these groups, and to achieve lasting progress on counterterrorism issues.”

Continuing the fight against the Taliban does not necessarily entail nation building, a policy President Trump does not favor.  It would involve direct military action aimed at destroying the Taliban, or at least reducing its power and influence to the point where the Kabul government can defend itself and expand its control over the entire country.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russia Works With Taliban

Russia continues to expand its international influence.  After allying with China and Iran, cementing its relations with Syria and growing closer to Turkey, it now seeks to regain a position of significant power in Afghanistan.

As 2016 drew to a close, reports the Times of India, Russia, China, and Pakistan held a meeting in Moscow to discuss ways to work with the Taliban. Iran is also said to be working with the group.

One major topic of the gathering was a proposal to remove top Taliban leaders from UN sanctions.

A study by The Diplomat noted that “On December 8, 2016, Russia’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Alexander Mantyskiy, announced that the Russian government had made a diplomatic outreach to the Taliban’s leaders… A senior Taliban official told Reuters in early December that Russia’s relationship with the Taliban began in 2007, as Moscow shared the Taliban’s objective of forcing all U.S. troops to swiftly withdraw from Afghanistan.

“The official end of the U.S. war in Afghanistan in 2014 did not cause Russia to distance itself from the Taliban…Critics of Russian foreign policy argue that Putin’s outreach to the Taliban is a cynical ploy to undermine the legitimacy of President Ashraf Ghani’s U.S.-backed government. Some Afghan policymakers and General John Nicholson, a leading U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, have publicly given credibility to this contention…Citing a high-level Taliban official The Daily Beast reported in October 2015 that Moscow also encouraged Tajik intelligence operatives to facilitate the shipment of Russian arms to the Taliban. This revelation, if true, would flagrantly contradict Russia’s pledge to uphold the international arms embargo against the Taliban…If the Taliban continues to recapture territory in southern Afghanistan and make a push for control of Kabul, Russia will be uniquely placed to have a decisive role in shaping Afghanistan’s political future.”

Since its launch in 1998, more than 16 million men were treated successfully and were able to resume their active brand viagra pfizer http://raindogscine.com/?attachment_id=248 sexual life. Instead of being dad, he is also a husband, a son-in-law, a brother-in-law loved this levitra without prescription and there are many more relations to maintain. cialis 40 mg It follows same execution to reduce the symptoms of erectile dysfunction which is also known by the name of Carl Hammerschlag. Overall this has to do viagra in italy a lot with this. According to Reuters, “Afghan and American officials are increasingly worried that any deepening of ties between Russia and Taliban militants fighting to topple the government in Kabul could complicate an already precarious security situation…a series of recent meetings they say has taken place in Moscow and Tajikistan has made Afghan intelligence and defence officials nervous about more direct support including weapons or funding. A senior Afghan security official called Russian support for the Taliban a ‘dangerous new trend’, an analysis echoed by …General John Nicholson. He…said Moscow was lending legitimacy to the Taliban.

A Voice of America  report also quotes General Nicholson as stating that “Russia has overtly lent legitimacy to the Taliban.”  As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously noted, the same could have been said about former President Obama, who negotiated with the Taliban in contradiction of long-established U.S. policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

For its part, the Taliban has acknowledged its ties to both Russia and Iran, according to the Anadolu Agency

“The Afghan Taliban group has acknowledged its ties with Moscow and Tehran, projecting them as proof of their legitimacy and their supposed diplomatic success. In a series of messages shared on their official website on Thursday, the militant group said: ‘It is joyous to see that the regional countries have also understood that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan [the name the Afghan Taliban use for themselves] is a political and military force’…[in November], Alexander Mantytskiy, Russian ambassador to Afghanistan, and Zamir Kabulov, special representative of Russia in Afghanistan-Pakistan, caused uproar here when they acknowledged ties between the Taliban and Russia….Afghan lawmakers were also increasingly becoming skeptical about the intentions of Moscow and Tehran. “Afghan officials in western Farah province have accused Iran of equipping and harboring the Taliban. Similar concerns have been raised by security officials in restive northern Kunduz province that borders Tajikistan. Kunduz briefly fell to the Taliban earlier this year, and Afghan officials claimed to have confiscated Russian arms from the Taliban after reclaiming it…Moscow had hosted Chinese and Pakistani officials for a trilateral conference on Afghanistan, without any representation from the Kabul government.”

The Taliban’s list of atrocities is on par or even exceeds that of any terrorist organization on the planet. Its massive list of crimes has been cataloged by organizations such as Amnesty International. 

Categories
Quick Analysis

What Happens if America Loses in Afghanistan

The President’s decision to allow 8,400 U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan until next year is a recognition of the extraordinary harm that would result if the mistake he made in Iraq is repeated.

Mr. Obama’s total withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Iraq led to the disaster in Iraq, the rise of ISIS, general turmoil throughout the Middle East, and an escalation of worldwide terrorism. The result of withdrawing from Afghanistan while the Taliban is increasingly resurgent would be equally devastating.

While American troops could not remain in Afghanistan indefinitely, progress achieved before the current administration has been jeopardized by a series of poor decisions by the Obama Administration, including the opening of negotiations with the Taliban in violation of long-standing American policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and, against military advice, the announcement of a withdrawal date. The Obama White House has clearly renounced the goals candidate Obama announced “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaida would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting; this is a – this is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

While the decision is appropriate, it may not be sufficient.

Off the record conversations by the New York Analysis with individuals who have been part of the U.S. effort in Afghanistan have indicated that during the Obama presidency the fight against the Taliban has been plagued by shortages of equipment, the forced layoffs of key officers, and the general reduction of funding for the U.S. military.

In 2014, notes the BBC,  Taliban leaders declared “victory” as NATO withdrew its (mostly American) forces, leaving only a residual training force. The potential to reduce the Taliban to relative impotence was eliminated in 2012, when America abandoned its policy of not negotiating with terrorists and the White House outlined a policy goal that discarded the prior Administration’s reasoning for entering into the conflict in the first place.
In the years since it was introduced in 1998, former Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole has served as a spokesman for the drug, manufacture of counterfeit pills has gone through the roof. levitra australia This is what men like a lot and start taking the pleasures of life which you truly deserve. viagra tadalafil The tablets are an more info here purchase generic cialis effective cure for ED disorder in middle aged men. cialis tadalafil 50mg It increase blood flow to the penis.
A Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) study  notes that the “Taliban has seized swaths of rural Afghanistan in such provinces as Helmand, Uruzgan, Nangarhar, and Kunduz. Over the past year, Taliban forces have also conducted several offensives against district and provincial capitals. In September 2015, for example, the northern city of Kunduz temporarily fell to the Taliban before being retaken by government forces.”

Clearly, the CFR notes, more than just a diminished commitment to victory by Washington is to blame for the reversal of fortunes. “[T]he effectiveness of the National [Afghan] Unity Government continues to be undermined by poor governance and internal friction between President Ashraf Ghani, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Abdullah Abdullah, and their supporters.”

The Taliban resurgence could be halted through greater U.S. emphasis on fulfilling original goals such as insuring fair elections, and economic development of areas beyond the Taliban’s control. But a military option—similar to the 2007 “surge” in Iraq that produced outstanding results (which were destroyed as a result of the Obama pullout) remains the most important. The 8,400 troops will not accomplish that goal.  It prevents an immediate disaster but leaves the hard decision-making to the next President.

The CFR study suggests that  “The United States could halt further reductions—or even increase—the number and type of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. These forces can train, advise, assist, and accompany Afghan forces and conduct direct-action missions; supplement Afghan forces with more intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance enablers; and increase close air support. The United States could also broaden U.S. counterterrorism legal authorities to proactively target the Taliban and Haqqani network. At the moment, U.S. forces can only target al-Qaeda and ISIL-KP operatives in Afghanistan, except in situations where extremists are plotting attacks against U.S. or other international forces or during in extremis cases where the Afghan government requests U.S. aid. The United States could also increase the authority for U.S. forces, particularly conventional forces, to train Afghans below the corps level.”

It is fully understandable that after so long the American public would be weary of the effort in Afghanistan. But the results of a Taliban resurgence should also be realized. The Taliban played a key role in the 9/11 attacks, and would commit vast new resources if power is regained in Afghanistan. The influence that would be gained in neighboring Pakistan would be dramatic. A complete takeover of that government would give the terrorists access to the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Repeats Past Mistakes in Afghanistan

Deeply disturbing news comes from a recent Congressional hearing on Afghanistan.

Unlike the contentious political skirmishes that surrounded the Iraq war and U.S. involvement in Libya, America’s military action against the Taliban, which has now become the nation’s longest fight, were widely supported. Clearly, that organization’s involvement in the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon made the necessity for a response beyond question.

However, in a repeat of questionable political dictates from the Vietnam era, U.S. and allied forces did not engage in full scale warfare designed to bring about absolute victory.  The enemy was allowed to take haven across national borders, and rules of engagement designed more for public opinion and legal scholars took precedence over actually defeating the foe.

In accordance with President Obama’s drive to end U.S. combat operations and withdraw most troops, similar to his policy in Iraq which allowed ISIS to become a major regional power, Americans are handing off combat duties to Afghan forces.  Unfortunately, they do not seem ready or capable of handling the responsibility.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) Chair of the House Armed Service Submcommittee on Oversight and investigations, stated “In reading the recent Congressional reports submitted by our witnesses, and listening to testimony from General Campbell, the subcommittee understands that the Afghan security forces are still in their nascent stages of becoming a professionalized, self-sustaining, and capable institution.  But, there are still various shortfalls and insufficient capabilities in important functions hindering these goals.

“The Afghan forces do not have enough airplanes or helicopters, especially those capable of providing close-air support.  While there clearly has been improvement, the ability to collect and disseminate ample intelligence is lacking, as is the ability to maintain and account for equipment.  Even the ‘bread and butter’ administrative issues, such as pay, leave, and medical services for Afghan forces need attention…these challenges are compounded by the fact that 70 percent of the problems facing Afghan Security forces result from poor senior leadership within the Afghan Ministries of Defense and the Interior.
Mostly it is due to the psychological reasons and set the stage for levitra generika an event of impotence. This is viagra line a direct result of the wellbeing and certification of treatment. Ajanta pharmacy cheapest viagra price observed these reasons and worked out on it. This step must not be tadalafil professional avoided and the pills should be mixed up with pennies enhancement exercise for a strong solution.
“The Taliban are emboldened, the Haqqani Network continues to sponsor terrorist attacks, and there is a growing Islamic State presence in Afghanistan…

“I am concerned that the president’s current budget request for aiding the Afghan forces is $200 million less than last year’s amount, and the Administration plans to withdrawal U.S. forces down to 5,500 beginning as soon as April of this year.  We must not prematurely reduce our commitment to the people of Afghanistan.  All one needs to do is look at the result of premature withdrawal in Iraq to determine what will happen if we repeat near history and prematurely leave Afghanistan.”

As noted in a Stratfor review,  “…the Taliban’s 15-year insurgency is escalating. The militant group now controls more territory than at any time since the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001. Worse still, the Taliban’s resolve to continue waging war remains undiminished…Army Gen. John Campbell, the outgoing commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, commented that Afghanistan has reached an inflection point, warning that 2016 could be even worse than 2015 if the United States fails to prosecute a consistent and effective strategy. Campbell also urged Congress to extend its annual $4.1 billion aid package to Afghanistan until at least 2020.”

Quoting Taliban sources, Longwar Journal notes that the organization as saying  embraced this death and destruction for the sake of some silly ministerial posts or a share of the power.  ‘This objective’ mentioned in the above quote is the re-establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban’s official name of its government. The Taliban has insisted from the very beginning that it will settle for nothing less than regaining full power.”

Over objections based both on practical and moral grounds, the Obama Administration opened discussions with the Taliban in 2011.  Since then, Taliban forces have become more brazen and effective.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Taliban’s return to power

The announced withdrawal of most American forces from Afghanistan may lead to results as deadly as those following the premature departure of US forces from Iraq, which allowed ISIS to develop into the powerhouse it has become. The White House goal is to reduce the size of American armed forces to 1,000 personnel, down from a high of 101,000 in 2011. There are currently about 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Providing advanced notice of a departure date is correctly seen as a major diplomatic and military blunder on the part of the White House. While the Obama Administration has stated that it supports the current government in Kabul, the fact that it opened talks with the Taliban in 2011 removes credibility from that position.

Several years ago, The BBC has reported that the Taliban had cut off the fingers of at least eleven Afghans who participated in that nations’ presidential run-off election. The terrorists did not want the voters to participate in that exercise in democracy.

In addition to the legal issues surrounding the White House’s decision to negotiate, very significant moral questions abound, as well as matters of diplomatic precedent.  Washington had, in the past, held to a wise policy of not negotiating with terrorists. To do invites more acts of terror by groups and individuals who see those acts as a path to extorting demands from governments. The Obama Administration abandoned the precedent of not negotiating with terrorists, and did so without consulting Congress, or with much discussion with the American public.

By elevating the Taliban to the status of a negotiating partner, it has given that terrorist organization a very substantial boost in its bid to return to power after America withdraws.

The results are already coming into focus. Foreign Policy  reports that insurgent bombings have risen as U.S. troops reduce operations against the Taliban.

Use one tablespoon viagra pills canada of primrose oil daily to maintain hypothyroidism. Keep in mind, penile erection requires blood flow towards deeprootsmag.org order cheap viagra the organ and when blood flow increases, it leads to powerful erection. About 40% viagra tablets india of cases of potency disorders are witnessed in males due to excessive stress, work pressure and stress. They can attain same harder erection for every time acquisition de viagra for all men as some men feel ED only when they are making efforts for erection during intercourse but when they are sleeping, they get nighttime erection. These attacks have resulted in high civilian casualties. The Taliban is best known as the organization that sheltered Al Qaeda when it launched the 9/11/01 assault against the American homeland. The attacks from the newly emboldened Taliban extend to Afghanistan’s neighbors, as well. The Arab news source Al Jazeera  recently reported that a minimum of 14 people, including the anti-Taliban provincial minister Shuja Khanzada, have been killed in a suicide attack in Pakistan’s Punjab province.

The Wall Street Journal reported on August 20 that “Afghans are braced for more bloodshed after the most deadly wave of attacks that many can remember, including those on Aug. 7 that caused more than 350 casualties, all civilians. That is the highest one-day total the U.N. mission has ever recorded…New U.N. data published Aug. 5 shows a 78% increase in six months—compared with the same period last year—in civilian casualties caused by suicide attacks and complex attacks like the recent bombings in Kabul.”

The Taliban’s rise is furthered evidenced in a Reuters report noted in the Guardian,  that “Al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has pledged allegiance to the new head of the Afghan Taliban in a move that could bolster his accession after the death of Taliban founder Mullah Mohammed Omar.”

The Taliban has, essentially, already claimed victory. In 2012, as reported in a Stratfor analysis,     “The Afghan Taliban … declared victory against Western forces in a statement titled ‘Formal Proclamation of the Islamic Emirate’s Victory.’ The document does not stop at claiming military victory over the United States, but also promotes the Taliban, not just as a national political movement but as an international player.”

James Clapper, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, gave his views on the Taliban’s strength in a statement  to the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year.

“The Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) prevented the Taliban from achieving a decisive military advantage in 2014. The ANSF, however, will require continued international security sector support and funding to stave off an increasingly aggressive Taliban insurgency through 2015. The ANSF, with the help of anti-Taliban powerbrokers and international funding, will probably maintain control of most major population centers. However, the forces will most likely cede control of some rural areas. Without international funding, the ANSF will probably not remain a cohesive or viable force. 21 The Taliban will probably remain largely cohesive under the leadership of Mullah Omar and sustain its countrywide campaign to take territory in outlying areas and steadily reassert influence over significant portions of the Pashtun countryside, positioning itself for greater territorial gains in 2015. Reliant on Afghanistan’s opiate trade as a key domestic source of funding, the Taliban will be able to exploit increasing opium poppy cultivation and potential heroin production for ready revenue. The Taliban has publicly touted the end of the mission of the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) and coalition drawdown as a sign of its inevitable victory, reinforcing its commitment to returning to power.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Failed Terrorism Policies

The catastrophic failure of the Obama Administration’s policies towards towards the Islamic world in general and radical Islam in particular is becoming increasingly evident.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the fate of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq, a purely terrorist entity which now controls an area the size of Massachusetts and is, according to the Arab news source al-Arabiya reportedly even issuing its own passports.

Al-Baghdadi, the new Osama Bin Laden, was actually in American custody until he was released by Mr. Obama in 2009.  Despite his rise to prominence following his release, the identical mistake has been made again in the release of the Taliban 5, prominent terrorist figures freed by the White House this year.
Therefore, these sex enhancer herbal pills increase ejaculation force in men. order cheap levitra informative shop When you look at market access there are several layers within the process -reimbursement at the HTA and then pricing at the national level. slovak-republic.org buy generic levitra http://www.slovak-republic.org/sport/golf/ cialis sale It serves as an eye opener on how to treat such problems, according to the cause of such problem. buy pill viagra http://www.slovak-republic.org/folk/dance/ Similarly there are many that don’t have the time to change that idea.
Elsewhere, we have seen the Administration’s inexplicable assault on Libya’s Muammar al-Gaddafi, who no longer threatened threatened the west, a move which gave rise to new opportunities for al-Qaeda in that nation; the White House’s vigorous endorsement for the overthrow of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, a flawed  but pro-peace, pro-American leader which led to the rise of the terrorist Moslem Brotherhood in that nation; the announcement of the withdrawal date of U.S. troops from Afghanistan as the White House negotiates with the Taliban, the same entity that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; the refusal to even voice any support for the Green Revolution in Iran, which sought to replace that nation’s vehemently anti-American regime; and the continual decline of U.S. relations with Israel, the only true friend the U.S. has in the middle east.

The White House continues to fail to provide any rational explanation of its bizarre actions and policies, which have clearly been to the detriment of the American people.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Negotiating America’s surrender in the war on terror

The BBC has reported that the Taliban had cut off the fingers of at least eleven Afghans who participated in that nations’ presidential run-off election. The terrorists did not want the voters to participate in that exercise in democracy.

This is the organization that the Obama Administration has been in negotiations with since June of 2013, in violation of U.S. law.  It is the same organization that has wrecked havoc in Iraq, and that, worldwide, assaults and kills women for seeking education or basic civil rights.  The same organization that bears responsibility for the deaths of thousands of Americans in the 9/11/01 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania.

In addition to the legal issues surrounding the White House’s decision to negotiate, very significant moral questions abound, as well as matters of diplomatic precedent.  Washington had, in the past, held to a wise policy of not negotiating with terrorists. To do invites more acts of terror by groups and individuals who see those acts as a path to extorting demands from governments.

That’s why the ideal dosage is one pill a unica-web.com buy cialis tablets day. In 1764, an inexpensive process was found out that created it feasible to distribute the real Karlovy Differ thermal spring salt had identical healing properties as generic sale viagra for the spring. One is not truly satisfied with what he has so they opt for more work and work load which in turn lead them to stress. online viagra mastercard The problem is tadalafil for women that most men do not submit to seeing a doctor even for health reasons. * a physical defect of the penis (such as Peyronie’s disease); or * retinitis pigmentosa (an inherited condition of the eye) If you experience vision loss,you should discontinue use and consult a doctor. The Obama Administration abandoned the precedent of not negotiating with terrorists, and did so without consulting Congress, or with much discussion with the American public.

Added to this is the fact of the very public announced departure date of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.  By elevating the Taliban to the status of a negotiating partner, it has given that terrorist organization a very substantial boost in its bid to return to power after America withdraws. The disaster that will befall that nation is similar to the fate of Iraq following the President’s premature withdrawal there. With al Qaeda making gains throughout the world, and the Taliban restored to the status quo that existed at the time of the 9/11/01 attacks, the safety of the American people has been placed in severe jeopardy.

In essence, the Administration has effectively negotiated a U.S. surrender in the war on terror.