Posts

China Will Decide When the Afghanistan War Ends

It is simply a matter of reverse engineering. If you get to the Taliban through Pakistan and you get to Pakistan through China, then clearly, Beijing is in the driver’s seat. Pakistan merely holds the valve that regulates the Taliban and the supply of our troops.

The conflict will end in a whimper, a political settlement whose main purpose is to provide a graceful exit that politely delays the announcement of a Taliban victory and a humiliating defeat for the U.S. and NATO, all choreographed by China, who will then set up shop as the dominant regional power.

China’s strategy is based on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), part of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) Initiative, which aims to connect Asia through land-based and maritime economic zones. CPEC is an infrastructure project, the backbone of which is a transportation network connecting China to the Pakistani seaports of Gwadar in Balochistan Province and Karachi in Sindh province, both located on the Arabian Sea.

Control of Afghanistan via its proxy Pakistan will allow China to complete transportation corridors, power grids and oil and gas pipelines throughout Central and South Asia. China can then begin to exploit Afghanistan’s estimated $3 trillion in untapped mineral resources, in addition to Balochistan’s $1 trillion in gold, copper, oil, precious stones, coal, chromite and natural gas.

CPEC calls for the influx of up to 500,000 Chinese professionals into Gwadar for port and naval facility development as well as expansion of the international airport to handle heavy cargo flights. The Chinese have visited and bought land in Sonmiani, which houses Pakistan’s spaceport and space research center as well as a planned liquid natural gas terminal. In addition, Balochistan’s Arabian Sea coast will become dotted with Chinese military bases, from which Beijing will dominate the vital sea lanes leading to the Persian Gulf and provide a link to the Chinese base in Djibouti at the entrance of the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, both strategic choke points.

Breitbart News Executive Chairman and former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon warned recently that America’s attention needs to be focused on China, or it will be left behind in the communist country’s wake.

Bannon stated that China would become the dominant global power if that country achieved five things in the coming years and the U.S. did not thwart them:

1. The rollout of fifth generation mobile technology – known as “5G.”

2. The expansion of the One Belt One Road Initiative – a transport system to go through central Asia and connect China to the Middle East.

3. Plan 2025 – 10 industries the Chinese have aimed to dominate by 2025. Bannon described the Chinese as “way ahead.” Bannon said three of those are silicon chips, robotics, and artificial intelligence.

4. Conversion of all oil transactions into Chinese currency, which he said will end America as a reserve currency and force the U.S. to start paying off the 20 trillion debt.

5. Financial technology. Bannon said the true piece of leverage with North Korea is the ability to decouple countries from the world’s financial system, sanction companies, and shut banks off from capital markets. He predicted that in 5-10 years that ability is gone.

The continued presence of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan remains an obstacle to China’s regional ambitions (Bannon’s item #2), which are both economic and military.

The United States and NATO have been expending huge quantities of blood and treasure to create a stable and democratic Afghanistan, free from transnational Islamic extremists and as a “useful platform for the regional counterterrorist effort,” so claims retired Gen. David Petraeus, although he doesn’t use the word “Islamic.”

Never mind that the “useful platform” has been unable for over sixteen years to counter the terrorists operating freely from safe havens just across the border in Pakistan or that the transnational terrorists that struck on 9/11 originated from outside of Afghanistan, that is, Pakistanis and Arabs.
Compared to 2001, there are now a far greater number of terrorist epicenters from which strikes can be made against the U.S. or its NATO allies, not the least of which are Islamic terrorists inside western societies linked to those epicenters.

Current U.S. Afghanistan policy can profit from a healthy injection of realpolitik.

The U.S. has actually more to gain by leveraging instability and thwarting Chinese ambitions in South Asia than by continuing the expensive and exhausting tasks of counterinsurgency and nation building in Afghanistan from which we will accrue a diminishing number of strategic benefits. (For more from the author of “China Will Decide When the Afghanistan War Ends” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Reverses on Afghanistan, Backs Intervention

By Newsmax. Declaring the U.S. will win “in the end,” President Donald Trump vowed Monday night to keep American troops fighting in Afghanistan despite his earlier inclination to withdraw. But he insisted the U.S. would not offer “a blank check” after 16 years of war, and he pointedly declined to say whether or when more troops might be sent.

In a prime-time address billed as the unveiling of his new Afghanistan strategy, Trump said the U.S. would shift away from a “time-based” approach, instead linking its assistance to results and to cooperation from the beleaguered Afghan government, Pakistan and others.

Still, he offered few details about how that approach would differ substantively from what the U.S. has already tried unsuccessfully under the past two presidents.

“We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities,” Trump said. “Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on.” (Read more from “Trump Reverses on Afghanistan, Backs Intervention” HERE)

_______________________________________

Trump Reverses Views on Afghanistan, a War With No Easy Exits

By Susan Page. In Afghanistan, there are no easy exits . . .

President Trump unveiled his “path forward” in Afghanistan in a nationally televised speech Monday night before a military audience at Fort Myer, just across the Potomac River from Washington. If that sounds familiar, it should: There have been more than a dozen official announcements of a changed course or a fresh approach or a strategic review in the 16 years since Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I’ve heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office,” Trump declared, describing his decision to continue the U.S. involvement, albeit with conditions. “Our commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check. The American people expect to see real reforms and real results.”

The speech stood as a test of the new commander-in-chief’s ability to rally a nation weary of this war behind his strategy to wage it — and at a time his moral authority is under fire for his comments on last week’s march by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va. (Read more from “Trump Reverses Views on Afghanistan, a War With No Easy Exits” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Afghanistan Has Been America’s Longest War. Here’s What Success Will Look Like.

Wednesday’s terror attack in Kabul is a stark reminder of how brutal the war in Afghanistan still is.

A suicide truck bomber drove near the German Embassy in Wazir Akbar Khan, the diplomatic heart of Kabul, and then detonated his bomb amid the morning rush-hour traffic. The blast killed at least 90 civilians and wounded another 400.

This wasn’t the first such attack in Afghanistan, and it won’t be the last. After almost 16 years of war in Afghanistan, it is only natural to wonder: How do we know if we are winning?

Winston Churchill, while serving as a young officer fighting the Pashtuns in the 19th century, explained the difficulty of winning the type of war he faced then and that the United States faces now in Afghanistan:

There are no general actions on a great scale, no brilliant successes, no important surrenders, no chance for a coup de theatre. It is just a rough hard job, which must be carried through. The war is one of small incidents. The victory must be looked for in the results.

Some things never change. What was true in 1897 is as true in 2017.

When NATO ended its combat operations in Afghanistan and transitioned into a train, advise, and assist role in 2015, the usual fanfare associated with victory in war was notably absent. There were no triumphal parades, no formal surrender ceremony, and no heroic march into an enemy’s capital.

This is not the Afghan way of war.

As Churchill wrote in 1897, “The victory must be looked for in the results.”

In late 2001, just after the 9/11 attacks, there were two main goals in Afghanistan.

First, to deny al-Qaeda a safe haven from which to plan, train, and launch terrorist attacks on a global scale.

Secondly, to remove the Taliban regime from power as punishment for not cooperating with the international community and for harboring terrorism—a sort of 21st-century version of a 19th-century punitive raid on the frontier.

Both were accomplished with relative speed—it can even be argued that this was achieved by the summer of 2002.

As the years went by, the explanation for what U.S. forces were doing in Afghanistan shifted from America’s raw national security needs to vague notions of nation building and “bringing democracy.”

Consequently, the inability to produce what public opinion considers tangible and achievable results 16 years on has disappointed many.

Since our military intervention in 2001, we have focused on the quixotic goals of creating “a strong central government” and a “pluralistic society” in Afghanistan. We have tried accomplishing these goals by “holding free and fair” elections, “tackling corruption,” and building the “institutions of democracy.”

If we fail to achieve these goals, we are presented with doomsday scenarios of “ungoverned spaces,” the Taliban “back in power,” and the establishment of new terrorist “safe havens.”

But this black-and-white view of the situation doesn’t work in a place like Afghanistan. It is a place with many shades of gray.

Frustrated Expectations

There is a complex middle ground in Afghanistan, and this is where we are today—and where we will likely be for the foreseeable future.

Few in the United States believe that we have been defeated in Afghanistan. They just think we haven’t met the objectives they expected to be achieved—and that what we have achieved has taken too long and cost too much.

This is not an unreasonable view. We have been fighting in Afghanistan for almost 16 years and will likely have some form of military involvement there for at least 16 more.

An 18-year-old soldier serving in Afghanistan today was only 2 years old at the time of the 9/11 attacks. Thousands of U.S. troops have been killed and wounded and just shy of $1 trillion has been spent.

For years, especially in the earlier days of the war, successive U.S. commanders thought that if one more road could be paved, one more school built, or one more hospital constructed, America could leave Afghanistan just that much better.

Over the years, this focus on nation building—however well intended it might have been—resulted in expectations set so high in Afghanistan that even obvious successes on the security front were not considered good enough.

This created an impossible situation for the U.S. military. With the lofty goals of nation building defining our success in the early days, the only thing most people see today in Afghanistan is failure.

However, a closer look at the situation shows that much has actually been achieved.

Successes Thus Far

After the successful targeting of Taliban leaders, combined with a robust counterinsurgency campaign over the years, the group as a national movement has degenerated into several smaller, weaker, and localized insurgencies—each with a different set of grievances and goals.

Even with today’s horrific attack in Kabul, the level of violence in Afghanistan is nowhere close to its peak in 2011–2012. Al-Qaeda, which once used Afghan territory with impunity, no longer enjoys a safe haven in Afghanistan from which to plan and launch terror attacks on a global scale.

The threat posed to Afghanistan by the Islamic State isn’t even close to being in the same league as the Taliban, and pales in comparison to the terror group’s other affiliates in Syria, Libya, and Yemen.

No major terrorist attack originating from Afghanistan has been successful in the United States since 2001.

The Taliban that rolled into Kandahar in 1994 with tanks and planes is a shadow of its former self today.

In 2001, outside of a small rump of territory run by the Northern Alliance in northeast Afghanistan, the Taliban controlled the entire country.

Today, according to the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction’s most recent quarterly report to Congress, the Taliban has “control or influence” in only 11 out of 407 districts across Afghanistan, equaling only 9 percent of the country’s population.

By contrast, 66 percent of Afghanistan’s population live under the “control or influence” of the Afghan government. The remaining 25 percent of the population lives in “contested” areas.

After 16 years of warfare, maybe we should come to terms with the fact that until there is a genuine political settlement between all warring parties and Pakistan stops providing succor to the Taliban, this might be as good as it’s going to get.

So what does success look like in Afghanistan?

Success in Afghanistan is not when 100 percent of its districts are under the complete control of the Afghan government or when there are no more suicide bombings. Nor is success in Afghanistan achieved when every road is paved, every girl goes to school, or everyone gets the right to vote.

These things are very important in themselves, and we should aspire to them, but they are neither the reasons why we went to Afghanistan nor the reasons why we should remain there.

Success is achieved when there is a stable enough Afghanistan—when it is able to manage its own internal and external security to a degree that stops interference from outside powers, allowing the country to resist the establishment of terror bases that were there before.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Realities on the Ground

The American public has every reason to be proud of what the U.S. military has accomplished under very challenging circumstances in Afghanistan. It is time that we have a dose of realism of what to expect in Afghanistan and lower our expectations on what is achievable for the future.

Afghanistan won’t be perfect or suddenly become some Switzerland in the Hindu Kush. Unless you are some idealistic dreamer who has never stepped foot in the country, this was never the goal.

For the rest of my life, there will be an insurgency in some form in the Pashtun heartland of the country. This doesn’t mean that the United States has failed. It is simply a reflection of the reality on the ground and in the region.

India, arguably the world’s largest democracy, fights two major insurgencies inside its borders today—as we were reminded last month when Maoist insurgents killed 25 Indian troops in Chhattisgarh.

Through local deals brokered by various tribes, it is inevitable that the black flag of the Taliban will be seen flying in places where U.S. troops were previously fighting and dying just years before.

Deals will be done between local factions that most reasonable people back in the United States would find incomprehensible, if not appalling. Allegiances between local Afghan tribes will change according to the direction in which the tide of success is seen to be flowing at the time.

This is not defeat. This is reality. This is the peculiar Afghan way of warfare in what is a deeply tribal society.

The Afghan military is far from being perfect, but that was never the goal. The goal is to get the forces to a capability where they can manage the insurgency themselves, without tens of thousands of Western troops on the ground.

Paraphrasing Lawrence of Arabia on the Arabs in his famous 27 Articles of 1917, it is better that the Afghans do it tolerably than we do it perfectly.

A Steady Support

If the West continues to mentor, train, and fund the Afghan military, then the Afghans will be able to take on the insurgency themselves. Eventually this will establish the security conditions inside which a genuine political process can take place between Afghans, the Afghan way.

This is why President Donald Trump’s upcoming decision to at least maintain, or even increase, the number of U.S. advisers and mentors is so important. One only has to look at what happened in Iraq when President Barack Obama withdrew all U.S. forces to understand why.

With each successful Taliban attack, the inevitable headlines immediately appear about America’s failures in Afghanistan.

But we cannot start seeing every tactical victory of the Taliban as America’s strategic defeat. There will be many more successful attacks like the one seen Wednesday in Kabul.

This is a unique kind of war, one in which the enemy has no problem killing himself to kill others and, for spiritual reasons, actually looks forward to the opportunity.

We need to start measuring success by achievements on the ground and not by unrealistic expectations. We also have to realize that patience is required. Success in Afghanistan will be measured in years and decades, not 24-hour news cycles and 140-character-long tweets.

It won’t be pretty, and there will be setbacks—after all, as Churchill reminds us: “It is a rough, hard job.” (For more from the author of “Afghanistan Has Been America’s Longest War. Here’s What Success Will Look Like.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Three US Soldiers Wounded in Afghan ‘Insider Attack’

Three American troops were wounded Sunday when an Afghan soldier opened fire in southern Helmand province, officials said, in the first known “insider attack” on international forces this year.

No insurgent group has so far claimed responsibility for the attack in Camp Antonik in Washer district, which highlights long-simmering tensions between Afghan and foreign forces.

“Three US soldiers were wounded this afternoon when an Afghan soldier opened fire on them at a base in Helmand province. Coalition security forces on the base killed the soldier to end the attack,” a spokesman for US forces in Afghanistan told AFP.

“The US soldiers are receiving medical treatment at this time and we will release more information when available.”

An Afghan soldier was also killed in the shootout, provincial spokesman Omar Zwak told AFP. (Read more from “Three US Soldiers Wounded in Afghan ‘Insider Attack'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In Afghanistan, the Ghosts of Christmas past and Present

For most Americans, Dec. 25, 2016, will be Christmas Day. For Nikki Altmann, it is also the fifth anniversary of her husband’s death in Afghanistan.

“Everything we were planning was gone in a moment’s notice,” Nikki told me less than six months after her husband was killed in action.

As many listen to the festive sounds of holiday cheer on Christmas Eve, a military widow will likely recall the sound of her husband’s voice. That’s because the last time Nikki and U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Joseph Altmann spoke to one another was on Christmas Eve 2011.

“We talked about everything … all of our dreams,” Nikki said. “(Joe) said that February or March was when he hoped to be home.”

About 24 hours later, Nikki, who was spending her holiday in Ireland while working as a flight attendant, was notified that her 27-year-old husband’s life had tragically ended in the mountains of Afghanistan’s Kunar Province. While the news itself was devastating, hearing that Joe died on Christmas Day was unimaginable.

“Every day is a constant reminder of what I had, what I was going to have, and what is no more,” the young military widow said in 2012.

Every day since our phone conversation, I have been inspired by the strength I heard in Nikki’s voice. I also remember something else she said.

“Six months from now, people won’t be calling to see how I’m doing,” she said.

Nikki’s husband is one of 2,392 American heroes to lose his or her life during America’s longest war. For those too young to remember, a U.S.-led coalition invaded Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, which were launched by al Qaeda terrorists being harbored by the Taliban. The war continues to this very day.

In recent years, some have spearheaded an ill-conceived effort to stop calling Afghanistan a war. That hasn’t changed the little-discussed fact that 91 U.S. troops have been killed there since New Year’s Day in 2014, including 14 so far this year. To call a conflict where courageous Americans are still being killed and wounded anything other than a war dishonors the valiant men and women who have sacrificed so much in Afghanistan over the past 15-plus years.

Diminishing the harsh reality of war also does a disservice to the approximately 8,400 U.S. troops who will be stationed in Afghanistan when President Obama passes the baton to President-elect Trump, who will be the 45th commander-in-chief of our nation’s Armed Forces. Until a president decides otherwise, thousands of American troops will continue putting their lives on the line as their families wait and worry at home.

Afghanistan isn’t some faraway footnote on Google Earth. It’s the war zone where Nikki’s husband gave all while proudly wearing our country’s uniform. Afghanistan isn’t just a news story (though many journalists have spent the last decade ignoring it), it’s where my Fire in My Eyes co-author, U.S. Navy LT Brad Snyder (Ret.), was permanently blinded by a bomb blast while courageously helping wounded Afghans.

Afghanistan is also where U.S. Army Capt. Florent Groberg (Ret.), with whom I’m writing a new book called 8 Seconds of Courage, charged a suicide bomber who was trying to wipe out the soldier’s entire patrol. Captain Groberg — America’s first foreign-born Medal of Honor recipient since the Vietnam War — saved dozens of American lives in those eight crucial seconds. More than four years later, he wears a bracelet bearing the names of four friends who did not survive the attack: U.S. Army Command Sgt. Maj. Kevin Griffin, U.S. Army Maj. Thomas Kennedy, U.S. Air Force Maj. Walter David Gray and USAID Foreign Service Officer Ragaei Abdelfattah. Flo has dedicated the rest of his life to sharing their stories.

On Dec. 7 — the 75th Anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor — the Pentagon announced that U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Allan Brown, 46, died the previous day at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. He had suffered devastating wounds during an enemy attack on Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan during a Veterans Day-themed event. Private First Class Tyler Iubelt, 20, and Sgt. John Perry, 30, were killed in the same terrorist attack.

Did you hear a single word about Sgt. 1st Class Brown’s ultimate sacrifice when he died less than two weeks ago? I saw the story on a local news broadcast while visiting Washington, D.C., which is near the departed warrior’s Takoma Park, Md., home. Yet as far as national news was concerned, the brave soldier’s story was barely a blip on the radar screen, which serves as yet another sad example of media malpractice.

For 16 straight Christmases, American warriors have spent their holiday seasons far from their families in a cold, desolate land. Five years ago, the day Christians celebrate Jesus Christ’s birthday was also the day that Staff Sgt. Joe Altmann went to heaven after making the ultimate sacrifice.

Regardless of our religious or political beliefs, we are all Americans. As the holidays approach, shouldn’t we be setting aside our differences and uniting around our troops fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and around the world, as well as their families and our nation’s veterans?

As Nikki so candidly predicted during our phone call, people would eventually stop calling to check in. Fifteen years and 16 Christmases after the war in Afghanistan was launched in the shadows of the Twin Towers, too many of us — especially those who work in journalism and politics — have moved on from Afghanistan.

For my part, I will not move on until the very last U.S. service member leaves Afghanistan and every single veteran and fallen hero of the conflict is appropriately honored. To do anything less would dishonor the service and sacrifice of patriots like the remarkable men and women mentioned in this column, who dedicated their lives to protecting their families and ours.

As your family sits down for dinner on Dec. 24, think about Joe and Nikki Altmann saying their final goodbyes five Christmas Eves earlier. As their story fills your mind, perhaps you will briefly interrupt the festivities to share it with others.

When looking at the smiles of your kids on Christmas morning, think about how much Joe and Nikki would probably have loved to raise children of their own. Then, perhaps you will tell your kids that as they open their presents, thousands of moms and dads aren’t spending Christmas with their children because they are serving overseas and protecting others.

Afghanistan, where Staff Sgt. Joe Altmann gave his last full measure of devotion five Christmases ago, is filled with the ghosts of Christmas past and present. As Americans fortunate enough to live in freedom, we must join together in honoring the heroes who gave us this precious holiday gift. (For more from the author of “In Afghanistan, the Ghosts of Christmas past and Present” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Father of Fallen Soldier Says Plane Passengers Booed Family

The father of an Army soldier killed in Afghanistan says he and his family were booed as they flew to meet his son’s body coming home.

Sgt. John Perry, 30, was killed in a suicide attack at Bagram Airfield on Saturday, along with Pfc. Tyler Iubelt and two American contractors. Stewart Perry told KOVR-TV his son stopped the suicide bomber short of his target and may have saved hundreds of lives.

Perry told the Army Times the booing took place on an American Airlines flight that landed in Phoenix Monday. Perry and his family were flying from Sacramento to Dover Air Force Base.

The captain told everyone to remain seated to let the Perry family leave first to make their connection.

“When he made that announcement, there was some hissing and some booing behind us,” Perry told the Army Times. (Read more from “Father of Fallen Soldier Says Plane Passengers Booed Family” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

15 Years of Utter Failure in Afghanistan and the Political Class Still Doesn’t Get It

It’s hard to conjure up a worse outcome for our investment in Afghanistan than the reality that confronts us today on the fifteenth anniversary of the war. With almost 2,400 dead Americans, 20,000 wounded, and $686 billion (as of 2014) expended towards building a Sharia government in Kabul (cost is exponentially higher when non-combat expenditures factored in), the Taliban now control more territory than they did prior to the 2001 invasion. Over 70% of the casualties have been on Obama’s watch, yet because a Democrat is in the White House, it’s as if the war and its quagmire never happened. Nor do Republicans care to talk about it and hold Obama accountable.

Further disquieting is that fact that this 800-pound gorilla in the room has almost never come up during the course of the presidential election — either in the Republicans primary or general election. Those who decline to observe the failures of Afghanistan are already showing signs of repeating the mistakes elsewhere.

In 2008, Obama won the presidency largely off the coattails of incessant media coverage of the war disasters, promising to pull out of Iraq and refocus attention on Afghanistan. Eight years later, we have nothing to show for it but daily Taliban gains, continued U.S. casualties, and increased levels of troops who are encumbered by restrictive rules of engagement with no defined mission to execute. We have long passed the point in which we must fish-or-cut-bait — ‘define victory or leave.’ Yet, instead of ordering the generals to prioritize a strategic end to this 15-year dumpster fire, Obama is making our generals draw up logistical plans for transgenderism in the service and burdening the already-haggard infantry and special operations units with the most insane ‘women in combat agenda’ imaginable.

To be clear, while Obama lost Afghanistan in the worst possible manner at the worst possible cost, and is still placing our special ops in an impossible morass to this day, the war was doomed to fail already during the Bush years. The original sin of Afghanistan was the same sin that we commit in every theater in the Middle East. Rather than defining the threat doctrine as Sharia-based Islam and the strategic interest as defending only our interests, we got sucked into untenable Islamic civil wars and nation-building for unstable enemy factions.

The enduring lesson of Afghanistan and Iraq, one which must now be heeded in Syria and Libya, is that even if the case for intervention in Islamic civil wars can be reasonably articulated — a tenuous assumption to begin with — there must be specific ground that we can hold for a specific entity that will serve our interests and hold the country together in a way that doesn’t completely erase our investment within a few years. In Afghanistan, we were never going to hold the southern Pashtun areas that were aligned with the Taliban. Sure, we could keep 200,000 troops there forever and let sleeping dogs lie, but at some point the civil war would break open again. The same principle applied to Iraq, with the perennial rubber-band action-reaction crisis between the Iranian-backed Shiites and the Salafist Sunnis. If there is no realistic play for our military to make, we need not, indeed must not, place them into a meat-grinder in a theater where all of the factions hate us.

Which brings us to Syria.

The international media is engaging in yellow journalism showing sensational pictures from the civil war in Aleppo, essentially goading America into further involving our military in the insufferable conflict. Even Republican leaders direct their criticism at Obama for not involving us enough in the civil war. They want more troops on the ground. But for what? To fight for whom? For which outcome? The same people who used disturbing images depicting the rule of terror from the Islamic State to declare a vacuous policy of “we must destroy ISIS” are now using the scene from Aleppo to demand that we destroy Assad and his Russian backers. Which one is it? How about we let Allah sort it out?

Undoubtedly, there are a lot of innocent people who get killed in any civil war, certainly Islamic civil wars. There is so much misery in this world and we pray for God’s salvation. But what is our military supposed to do? The political class in both parties would have you believe we could identify a group of Thomas Jefferson Democrats in the country, vanquish ISIS, vanquish all of the Al Qaeda affiliates and splinter groups, defeat Assad and the Russians … and then have those mythical characters hold the entire ungovernable array of Islamic tribes together. Obama has already abused our special operators and resources by having them fund and train Al Qaeda splinter groups that are calling for the beheading of those troops already there!

Calling on Obama to “do more” will solve nothing but bring the misery of Islamic civil wars to our brave soldiers. It is our people and their safety who must reflect our first priority. We should not work against Russia nor should we work with them. In fact, there is nothing worse I’d wish upon the Russians than the commitment to the dumpster fire they have just forged. They will never be able to place that genie back in the bottle. Let them have another Afghanistan on their hands, not on ours.

This is not to say we shouldn’t stay engaged and don’t have strong plays we can make in the region. We should be supporting Egyptian President el-Sisi in his fight not only against ISIS, but the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia supremacism. We should support the duly-elected Libyan House of Representatives, which appointed Khalifa Haftar commander of the Libyan army. Haftar successfully took back much of eastern Libya from the radical Islamists and fought the various terrorist factions, including those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Haftar was so feared by the Islamists that Ansar al Sharia, the group behind the Benghazi attack, accused Haftar of launching “a war against the religion and Islam backed by the West and their Arab allies.”

Unfortunately, Obama has already repeated the same mistakes in Libya, choosing to back the Faiez Serraj-led Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli. The GNA has relied on Islamist militias affiliated with Ansar al Sharia to control territory and is now collapsing under its own weight. Thus, once again, Obama has expended ground troops and air power on behalf of a failed Islamist “rebel” government.

While Obama chooses to side with all of our enemies in any given theater, the Republican foreign policy establishment thinks we should invest our time and treasure on behalf of some of our enemies to defeat other enemies. It’s time for a new strategy of telegraphing the message to players in the Middle East that if you fight Islamic supremacism — the threat doctrine of our enemy — we will be with you. If not, let Allah sort it out.

Fifteen years into the Afghanistan failure, it is irresponsible to continue sacrificing our troops there for no reason. Conservatives must chart a new course on foreign policy, grounded in the reality of the threat we face and divorced from the willful blindness of the past two administrations. At the very least, we must prevent the political leadership from creating a new Afghanistan. Our country can’t afford another fifteen years. (For more from the author of “15 Years of Utter Failure in Afghanistan and the Political Class Still Doesn’t Get It” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Scathing Report: America’s ‘Ultimate Failure’ in Afghanistan

A blistering new report blasts the U.S. government’s pouring of billions of dollars into projects in Afghanistan with inadequate oversight that in many cases fueled corruption on unprecedented levels and ultimately undermined America’s mission there.

The 164-page report, published online today by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), is the first in the agency’s “Lessons Learned” series, which takes a broader look at the U.S. government’s shortcomings in the 15 years since the 2001 invasion. SIGAR previously released report after report about the waste of millions of dollars in failed individual projects.

This report, titled “Corruption in Conflict,” says that at early on, the U.S. government did not “fully appreciate the potential for corruption to threaten the security and state-building mission in Afghanistan,” where some form of regular corruption has existed for centuries.

“The U.S. government also failed to recognize that billions of dollars injected into a small, underdeveloped country, with limited oversight and strong pressures to spend, contributed to the growth of corruption,” the report says.

In its dogged pursuit of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the U.S. threw its lot in with local “warlords” and their militias — men who later rose to prominence in the Afghan government and used their positions engage in “rampant corruption activities,” the report says. (Read more from “Scathing Report: America’s ‘Ultimate Failure’ in Afghanistan” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Woman Stoned to Death for Adultery

The men surround the woman as she stands in a hole dug into the stony ground, only her head pokes above the surface. Then they begin to pick up rocks and hurl them at her again and again from close range.

The barbaric killing took place in a Taliban-controlled village in central Afghanistan last week, according to the provincial governor. Video of it, apparently filmed on a cell phone, has circulated on social media.

The 19-year-old woman, identified as Rokhshana, had been forced to marry against her will and recently fled with another man, said Seema Joyenda, the governor of Ghor province. The couple were caught after two days, and the Taliban leader of the village ordered that Rokhshana be stoned to death for adultery, Joyenda said.

The killing underlines the widespread problem of violence against women in Afghanistan. Earlier this year, the brutal killing of a 27-year-old woman by a mob in Kabul, the capital, stirred outrage both inside the country and around the globe . . .

Joyenda, one of two female governors in Afghanistan, said she cried as she watched the video of Rokhshana’s killing. (Read more from “Woman Stoned to Death for Adultery” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama-Led Drone Strikes Kill Innocents 90% of the Time

By Andrew Blake. Drone strikes conducted by the United States during a five-month-long campaign in Afghanistan caused the deaths of unintended targets nearly nine out of ten times, leaked intelligence documents suggest.

The apparent 10 percent success rate with regards to a specific span in America’s drone war is among the most damning revelations to surface so far as the result of a series of articles published by The Intercept on Thursday this week which rely on classified and confidential intelligence documents supplied by an unknown source.

“These docs illustrate what a video game, drained of all humanity, these drone assassinations have become,” founding editor Glenn Greenwald tweeted on Thursday.

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor now in exile, has previously supplied journalists at the online news site with top-secret documents detailing the intelligence community’s eavesdropping efforts — the likes of which has sparked international debates concerning privacy and civil liberties implications, among other factor, as well as calls for legislative reform in the U.S. and abroad.

But the latest trove of documents — previously unpublished reports concerning suspected terrorists, signals intelligence gathering and, ultimately, the launching of often lethal drone strikes — are the apparent offerings of a new source likely to soon be scorned by the U.S. government as well. (Read more from “Obama-Led Drone Strikes Kill Innocents 90% of the Time” HERE)

____________________________________

Fact Check: Obama Claims Afghan Combat Mission Over – Despite Airstrikes, Special Ops

By Jennifer Griffin and Lucas Tomlison. President Obama may be stretching when he assures the American public that combat operations in Afghanistan ended last year.

The president repeated the claim Thursday as he announced 5,500 U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan after 2016. “Last December, more than 13 years after our nation was attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11, America’s combat mission in Afghanistan came to responsible end,” Obama said from the White House, flanked by Vice President Biden, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joe Dunford and Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

But this year alone, the U.S. military has carried out more than 328 airstrikes, dropping 629 bombs since January, according to U.S. Air Force Central Command. That amounts to roughly one U.S. airstrike a day since the president announced that combat operations had ended during his State of the Union address in January. So far this year, 25 U.S. service members have been killed in Afghanistan.

During his January address, Obama said U.S. troops have moved to a “support role.” He said, “Together with our allies, we will complete our mission there by the end of this year, and America’s longest war will finally be over.”

Obama backed off his pledge Thursday to end the war by the end of the year, but maintained that the combat mission is over and said the mission of those staying behind will not change. The remaining U.S. forces will be based at three air bases in Bagram, Kandahar and Jalalabad, and will only be authorized to train Afghans and hunt Al Qaeda. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.