Afghan police have discovered mass grave containing the bodies of at least 36 victims of a recent militant attack on a village, officials said on Wednesday.

One grave in the northern province of Sar-e Pul held 28 bodies and another contained eight, said provincial government spokesman Zabihullah Amani.

&quot;Most of the victims were beheaded,&quot; he said, noting that all were men, except for three boys between the ages of eight and 15.

A third mass grave had been located but it was in an area under Taliban control, and security forces were searching for more possible graves, Amani added.

On Wednesday, residents held funerals for several victims of the raid.

At least 62 people have been confirmed dead in the attack on Mirza Olang village last week, with the number expected to rise, according to the Sar-e Pul governor&#39;s office.

The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission said a preliminary investigation suggested that militants from the Taliban and Islamic State, who are normally bitter rivals, acted together.

That has been denied by the Taliban, who said they had carried out the attack alone and did not kill any civilians.

Islamic State issued a statement on Monday claiming it had led the attack and killed about 54 Shi&#39;ite Muslims, a minority group in Afghanistan that has often come under attack from Islamic State.

Villagers who escaped from Mirza Olang told reporters they saw fighters carrying both the white banner of the Taliban and the black banner of Islamic State.

In a region where bands of fighters often switch between different militant groups, it can be difficult to establish allegiances with any certainty.

A preliminary investigation suggested that militants from the Taliban and Islamic State, who are normally bitter rivals, acted together

Afghan police have discovered mass grave containing the bodies of at least 36 victims of a recent militant attack on a village, officials said on Wednesday. One grave in the northern province of Sar-e Pul held 28 bodies and another contained eight, said provincial government spokesman Zabihullah Amani. "Most of the victims were beheaded," he said, noting that all were men, except for three boys between the ages of eight and 15. A third mass grave had been located but it was in an area under Taliban control, and security forces were searching for more possible graves, Amani added. On Wednesday, residents held funerals for several victims of the raid. At least 62 people have been confirmed dead in the attack on Mirza Olang village last week, with the number expected to rise, according to the Sar-e Pul governor's office. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission said a preliminary investigation suggested that militants from the Taliban and Islamic State, who are normally bitter rivals, acted together. That has been denied by the Taliban, who said they had carried out the attack alone and did not kill any civilians. Islamic State issued a statement on Monday claiming it had led the attack and killed about 54 Shi'ite Muslims, a minority group in Afghanistan that has often come under attack from Islamic State. Villagers who escaped from Mirza Olang told reporters they saw fighters carrying both the white banner of the Taliban and the black banner of Islamic State. In a region where bands of fighters often switch between different militant groups, it can be difficult to establish allegiances with any certainty.

Afghan police discover mass graves after village attack

Afghan police have discovered a mass grave containing the bodies of at least 36 victims of a recent militant attack on a village, officials said on Wednesday.

One grave in the northern province of Sar-e Pul held 28 bodies and another contained eight, said provincial government spokesman Zabihullah Amani.

&quot;Most of the victims were beheaded,&quot; he said, noting that all were men, except for three boys between the ages of eight and 15.

A third mass grave had been located but it was in an area under Taliban control, and security forces were searching for possible graves, Amani added.

On Wednesday, residents held funerals for several victims of the raid.

At least 62 people have been confirmed dead in the attack on Mirza Olang village last week, with the number expected to rise, according to the Sar-e Pul governor&#39;s office.

The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission said a preliminary investigation suggested that militants from the Taliban and Islamic State, who are normally bitter rivals, acted together.

That has been denied by the Taliban, who said they had carried out the attack alone and did not kill any civilians.

Islamic State issued a statement on Monday claiming it had led the attack and killed about 54 Shi&#39;ite Muslims, a minority group in Afghanistan that has often come under attack from Islamic State.

Villagers who escaped from Mirza Olang told reporters they saw fighters carrying both the white banner of the Taliban and the black banner of Islamic State.

In a region where bands of fighters often switch between different militant groups, it can be difficult to establish allegiances with any certainty.

The mass grave contains the bodies of at least 36 victims of a recent militant attack on a village

Afghan police have discovered a mass grave containing the bodies of at least 36 victims of a recent militant attack on a village, officials said on Wednesday. One grave in the northern province of Sar-e Pul held 28 bodies and another contained eight, said provincial government spokesman Zabihullah Amani. "Most of the victims were beheaded," he said, noting that all were men, except for three boys between the ages of eight and 15. A third mass grave had been located but it was in an area under Taliban control, and security forces were searching for possible graves, Amani added. On Wednesday, residents held funerals for several victims of the raid. At least 62 people have been confirmed dead in the attack on Mirza Olang village last week, with the number expected to rise, according to the Sar-e Pul governor's office. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission said a preliminary investigation suggested that militants from the Taliban and Islamic State, who are normally bitter rivals, acted together. That has been denied by the Taliban, who said they had carried out the attack alone and did not kill any civilians. Islamic State issued a statement on Monday claiming it had led the attack and killed about 54 Shi'ite Muslims, a minority group in Afghanistan that has often come under attack from Islamic State. Villagers who escaped from Mirza Olang told reporters they saw fighters carrying both the white banner of the Taliban and the black banner of Islamic State. In a region where bands of fighters often switch between different militant groups, it can be difficult to establish allegiances with any certainty.

Afghanistan police discover mass graves of recent militant attack

A suicide bomber has blown himself up in front of the Iraqi embassy in Kabul, AFP reported quoting a security source.&nbsp;

&quot;Civilians are being evacuated&quot; from the area as the attack is ongoing, AFP quoted the official as saying.&nbsp;

Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack,&nbsp;&nbsp;the group&#39;s Amaq news agency reported.&nbsp;

AFP reported that at least four explosions, along with the sounds of gunfire and grenades, were heard by their reporters and residents near the city&#39;s diplomatic quarter shortly after 11 am.&nbsp;

Reuters reported Afghan security forces as saying the attackers appeared to have taken cover in the embassy building.

A suicide bomber blew himself up near the embassy. The attack is ongoing

A suicide bomber has blown himself up in front of the Iraqi embassy in Kabul, AFP reported quoting a security source. "Civilians are being evacuated" from the area as the attack is ongoing, AFP quoted the official as saying. Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack, the group's Amaq news agency reported. AFP reported that at least four explosions, along with the sounds of gunfire and grenades, were heard by their reporters and residents near the city's diplomatic quarter shortly after 11 am. Reuters reported Afghan security forces as saying the attackers appeared to have taken cover in the embassy building.

Kabul: Islamic State claims responsibility for attack on Iraqi embassy

A group of men sit&nbsp;in a small hut made of clay and mud in one of the city&#39;s many informal refugee camps. The hut is pretty crowded, someone stares curiously at what is going on and others keep sewing typical Afghan clothes. Children tiptoe to steal a glimpse of the inside and quickly disappear&nbsp;when an elder spots them. It goes without saying that the camp has no running water and no sewage system. It is hot and flies are all over the place.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>We came here because your countries bombed our land</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=We came here because your countries bombed our land" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&ldquo;We came here because your countries bombed our land,&rdquo; says the man that the small venue elected&nbsp;spokesperson. They all come from Helmand, the famous Taliban heartland in the south of Afghanistan. &ldquo;We live here since ten years,&rdquo; he says.&nbsp;Ten years. This is what often happens when you run away from war: You know when you leave, but you do not know when and if you will ever go back.

&ldquo;Of course we dream to go back to our land, but we also need security to do so,&rdquo; he says. Afghanistan is one of those places where war has never been short. US troops, sixteen years back, invaded the country, chasing the ghost of Al-Qaeda, and that very same war is still going on and disrupting lives.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/untitled%20design%20(16)-20170620063323.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Afghanistan is one of those places where war has never been short (Others)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

One of the things war does is impose&nbsp;its violence on you. It doesn&rsquo;t matter if you were living your usual life, sowing&nbsp;seeds or grazing sheep. Violence does not ask your permission to destroy your life, it just does it. Suddenly, one day, while you are living your usual countryside life, some random armed group pops&nbsp;up and starts&nbsp;imposing its rules on you, and you accept it. You do so out of fear, out of a quick pro&nbsp;and con&nbsp;evaluation: &quot;I am a peaceful man, I want to mind my business, is refusing&nbsp;worth dying over?&quot; &nbsp;

It is easy for those who are not there&nbsp;to say&nbsp;&quot;revolt, fight back&quot;. Revolting against an armed power exercising its monopoly of violence on you, is one of those things which seems kind of easy when you are not the one doing it.

This is a war though, and it does not seek permission. You won&rsquo;t get away just abiding by someone&rsquo;s law, especially if that someone has enemies. One day&nbsp;your rulers&rsquo; enemy&nbsp;attacks. Jet fighters fly where you were used to seeing birds, and in&nbsp;seconds&nbsp;there is nothing left of your life except you. Your house, your fields, the small dusty roads of the village--all gone. There is nothing left, maybe some of your sheep, if you are lucky.&nbsp;

You look around, you visualise your small village in the countryside. Where pomegranates used to be as sweet as sugar, there are now piles of smoking rubbles. You try to make sense of the tragedy, you cry and you call to god, whatever god you believe in.&nbsp;No matter how hard you try, the reality is that war does not ask your permission to destroy your life. It just does it and it sucks.

Suddenly, you realise that along with other survivors you do not know what to do.

&quot;Maybe it is over. It was just a one-off attack,&quot;&nbsp;you speculate. You spend all the night with the elders&nbsp;discussing what to do, but there is no solution. Then, that armed group comes back at dawn and you realise all at once that what happened was not a one-off tragedy. The others, whoever they are, will bomb again in an endless cycle of destruction. It&rsquo;s done, war invaded your space, and it does not matter if you just wanted to keep looking after your sheep and your crop.

You do not get to decide.

Your conservation instinct often prevails: &ldquo;A&nbsp;wretched life is anyway better than a cruel death,&rdquo; you think. With these words in your mind, your private personal odyssey begins. You leave everything behind and you go.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/untitled%20design%20(17)-20170620064650.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
No hopes from the government (Others)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Where do you go? You try to reach a city, the biggest city. &lsquo;&ldquo;The government will help us,&rdquo; you think. You have a few chances in front of you: You can try to reach a refugee camp and live in a tent. You can become a beggar on the street of a city, knocking at fancy cars&rsquo; windows for&nbsp;coins. You can also live in an informal refugee camp on the city&#39;s outskirts. You can also end up in the hands of organised crime; Criminal networks build their empires exploiting people like you. Whatever you do, the outcome is pretty much the same: Your wait begins, because you did not leave your house by&nbsp;choice.&nbsp;

It does not matter how good you are at adapting, the melancholy of your previous life will not abandon you. The desire to go back, one day, where the pomegranates were as sweet as sugar,&nbsp;will always accompany you.

&ldquo;Some of us sell pomegranates to make a living here, but these are small, not good,&rdquo; says the village council&rsquo;s spokesperson.

This is not one peson&#39;s particular&nbsp;story,&nbsp;but the story of millions of people at the same time. According to the most recent UN survey, 65.5 million people are currently displaced worldwide. It is a record in human history, but nothing we should be proud of; 25.5 million of them are refugees, 40.3 million are internally displaced people and 2.8 million are asylum seekers.&nbsp;

In Afghanistan, in the first five and a half months of 2017, as many as 136,000 people have been displaced and 2,200 civilians got killed or injured during the ongoing conflict. Year by year, it is not getting any better. &ldquo;In 2010 in this hospital we were able to do also civilian traumas below fourteen. Now it is not an option anymore,&rdquo; says Giorgia Novello, medical coordinator for the Emergency hospital in Kabul. &ldquo;In all our projects, the number of war wounded has increased.&rdquo;

The men in the hut kept discussing politics and society&rsquo;s problem. They sit in a circle, exactly as they would have done in their villages if only the war would not have forced them to leave.

65.5 million people are currently displaced from their home worldwide, a record in human history

A group of men sit in a small hut made of clay and mud in one of the city's many informal refugee camps. The hut is pretty crowded, someone stares curiously at what is going on and others keep sewing typical Afghan clothes. Children tiptoe to steal a glimpse of the inside and quickly disappear when an elder spots them. It goes without saying that the camp has no running water and no sewage system. It is hot and flies are all over the place. We came here because your countries bombed our land × “We came here because your countries bombed our land,” says the man that the small venue elected spokesperson. They all come from Helmand, the famous Taliban heartland in the south of Afghanistan. “We live here since ten years,” he says. Ten years. This is what often happens when you run away from war: You know when you leave, but you do not know when and if you will ever go back. “Of course we dream to go back to our land, but we also need security to do so,” he says. Afghanistan is one of those places where war has never been short. US troops, sixteen years back, invaded the country, chasing the ghost of Al-Qaeda, and that very same war is still going on and disrupting lives. Afghanistan is one of those places where war has never been short (Others) × One of the things war does is impose its violence on you. It doesn’t matter if you were living your usual life, sowing seeds or grazing sheep. Violence does not ask your permission to destroy your life, it just does it. Suddenly, one day, while you are living your usual countryside life, some random armed group pops up and starts imposing its rules on you, and you accept it. You do so out of fear, out of a quick pro and con evaluation: "I am a peaceful man, I want to mind my business, is refusing worth dying over?" It is easy for those who are not there to say "revolt, fight back". Revolting against an armed power exercising its monopoly of violence on you, is one of those things which seems kind of easy when you are not the one doing it. This is a war though, and it does not seek permission. You won’t get away just abiding by someone’s law, especially if that someone has enemies. One day your rulers’ enemy attacks. Jet fighters fly where you were used to seeing birds, and in seconds there is nothing left of your life except you. Your house, your fields, the small dusty roads of the village--all gone. There is nothing left, maybe some of your sheep, if you are lucky. You look around, you visualise your small village in the countryside. Where pomegranates used to be as sweet as sugar, there are now piles of smoking rubbles. You try to make sense of the tragedy, you cry and you call to god, whatever god you believe in. No matter how hard you try, the reality is that war does not ask your permission to destroy your life. It just does it and it sucks. Suddenly, you realise that along with other survivors you do not know what to do. "Maybe it is over. It was just a one-off attack," you speculate. You spend all the night with the elders discussing what to do, but there is no solution. Then, that armed group comes back at dawn and you realise all at once that what happened was not a one-off tragedy. The others, whoever they are, will bomb again in an endless cycle of destruction. It’s done, war invaded your space, and it does not matter if you just wanted to keep looking after your sheep and your crop. You do not get to decide. Your conservation instinct often prevails: “A wretched life is anyway better than a cruel death,” you think. With these words in your mind, your private personal odyssey begins. You leave everything behind and you go. No hopes from the government (Others) × Where do you go? You try to reach a city, the biggest city. ‘“The government will help us,” you think. You have a few chances in front of you: You can try to reach a refugee camp and live in a tent. You can become a beggar on the street of a city, knocking at fancy cars’ windows for coins. You can also live in an informal refugee camp on the city's outskirts. You can also end up in the hands of organised crime; Criminal networks build their empires exploiting people like you. Whatever you do, the outcome is pretty much the same: Your wait begins, because you did not leave your house by choice. It does not matter how good you are at adapting, the melancholy of your previous life will not abandon you. The desire to go back, one day, where the pomegranates were as sweet as sugar, will always accompany you. “Some of us sell pomegranates to make a living here, but these are small, not good,” says the village council’s spokesperson. This is not one peson's particular story, but the story of millions of people at the same time. According to the most recent UN survey, 65.5 million people are currently displaced worldwide. It is a record in human history, but nothing we should be proud of; 25.5 million of them are refugees, 40.3 million are internally displaced people and 2.8 million are asylum seekers. In Afghanistan, in the first five and a half months of 2017, as many as 136,000 people have been displaced and 2,200 civilians got killed or injured during the ongoing conflict. Year by year, it is not getting any better. “In 2010 in this hospital we were able to do also civilian traumas below fourteen. Now it is not an option anymore,” says Giorgia Novello, medical coordinator for the Emergency hospital in Kabul. “In all our projects, the number of war wounded has increased.” The men in the hut kept discussing politics and society’s problem. They sit in a circle, exactly as they would have done in their villages if only the war would not have forced them to leave.

All refugees desire to go back home, one day

A US&nbsp;Army soldier who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now stationed in Hawaii has been arrested on charges of providing material support to Islamic State (IS) extremists, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Monday.

Ikaika Kang, 34, an active-duty soldier assigned to the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, had been under investigation by the Army and FBI for more than a year and was taken into custody on Saturday, according to an FBI statement provided to Reuters.

According to a criminal complaint filed in US&nbsp;District Court in Honolulu, Kang has sworn allegiance to Islamic State, the militant group that seized large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq for a self-proclaimed caliphate.

He also is accused of attempting to provide military documents and training to the group, the FBI said in its statement.

Federal authorities believe that Kang, who was assigned to the Army&#39;s Schofield Barracks on the island of Oahu, was a &quot;lone actor&quot; who had no known associations with anyone who might pose a threat to Hawaii, the FBI said.

He was slated to make an initial court appearance on Monday afternoon.

A US Army soldier who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan has been arrested for providing support to the Islamic State

A US Army soldier who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now stationed in Hawaii has been arrested on charges of providing material support to Islamic State (IS) extremists, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Monday. Ikaika Kang, 34, an active-duty soldier assigned to the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, had been under investigation by the Army and FBI for more than a year and was taken into custody on Saturday, according to an FBI statement provided to Reuters. According to a criminal complaint filed in US District Court in Honolulu, Kang has sworn allegiance to Islamic State, the militant group that seized large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq for a self-proclaimed caliphate. He also is accused of attempting to provide military documents and training to the group, the FBI said in its statement. Federal authorities believe that Kang, who was assigned to the Army's Schofield Barracks on the island of Oahu, was a "lone actor" who had no known associations with anyone who might pose a threat to Hawaii, the FBI said. He was slated to make an initial court appearance on Monday afternoon.

US Army soldier arrested in Hawaii on terrorism charges

Eight Afghan guards have been&nbsp;killed and two others wounded after&nbsp;gunmen attacked the American base at Bagram&nbsp;in Afghanistan.

Bagram is around 50 kilometres (31 miles) north of Kabul. The Bagram base&nbsp;contains the largest US contingent in the country.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/dozens-killed-and-wounded-in-attack-on-regional-afghanistan-police-hq-officials-16965">Also Read:&nbsp;At least 5 dead, 18 wounded in Afghan police HQ attacks</a>

&quot;They were all local residents serving as guards at Bagram,&quot; said district governor Abdul Shakoor Quddusi, adding that they were riding back home in a convoy when attacked.&nbsp;

Nobody has claimed responsibility for the attack. The Taliban are setting up nationwide attacks to regain&nbsp;their Afghanistan stronghold, while ISIS is trying to make new inroads into the country.&nbsp;

The US is expected&nbsp;to increase military deployment in the country to help Afghan forces contain the Taliban&#39;s rising offensive. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-to-send-4000-more-troops-to-afghanistan-reports-16891">At present, there are 8,400 US troops and another 5,000 from NATO allies </a>in Afghanistan, much&nbsp;less&nbsp;compared to the 100,000 troops six years ago.&nbsp;

Seven American soldiers were wounded in an insider attack by an Afghan soldier at Camp Shaheen near the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif on Saturday.

Analysts say such attacks are expected to increase this year as US troops engage with the Afghan military to double the size of its special forces, considered to be effective in the fight against insurgents.

The Afghan conflict is the longest in American history, with US-led forces at war there since the Taliban regime was ousted in 2001. 
&nbsp;

Bagram is around 50 kilometres (31 miles) north of Kabul. The Bagram base?contains the largest US contingent in the country

Eight Afghan guards have been killed and two others wounded after gunmen attacked the American base at Bagram in Afghanistan. Bagram is around 50 kilometres (31 miles) north of Kabul. The Bagram base contains the largest US contingent in the country. Also Read: At least 5 dead, 18 wounded in Afghan police HQ attacks "They were all local residents serving as guards at Bagram," said district governor Abdul Shakoor Quddusi, adding that they were riding back home in a convoy when attacked. Nobody has claimed responsibility for the attack. The Taliban are setting up nationwide attacks to regain their Afghanistan stronghold, while ISIS is trying to make new inroads into the country. The US is expected to increase military deployment in the country to help Afghan forces contain the Taliban's rising offensive. At present, there are 8,400 US troops and another 5,000 from NATO allies in Afghanistan, much less compared to the 100,000 troops six years ago. Seven American soldiers were wounded in an insider attack by an Afghan soldier at Camp Shaheen near the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif on Saturday. Analysts say such attacks are expected to increase this year as US troops engage with the Afghan military to double the size of its special forces, considered to be effective in the fight against insurgents. The Afghan conflict is the longest in American history, with US-led forces at war there since the Taliban regime was ousted in 2001.

Eight Afghan guards killed, two injured in attack on American base at Bagram

President Donald Trump&#39;s administration appears ready to harden its approach toward Pakistan to crack down on Pakistan-based militants launching attacks in neighbouring Afghanistan, U.S. officials tell Reuters.

Potential Trump administration responses being discussed include expanding U.S. drone strikes, redirecting or withholding some aid to Pakistan and perhaps eventually downgrading Pakistan&#39;s status as a major non-NATO ally, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Some U.S. officials, however, are skeptical of the prospects for success, arguing that years of previous U.S. efforts to curb Pakistan&#39;s support for militant groups have failed, and that already strengthening U.S. ties to India, Pakistan&#39;s arch-enemy, undermine chances of a breakthrough with Islamabad.

U.S. officials say they seek greater cooperation with Pakistan, not a rupture in ties, once the administration finishes a regional review of the strategy guiding the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan.

Precise actions have yet to be decided.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Pakistan fiercely denies allowing any militants safe haven on its territory</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Pakistan fiercely denies allowing any militants safe haven on its territory" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The White House and Pentagon declined to comment on the review before its completion. Pakistan&#39;s embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

&quot;The United States and Pakistan continue to partner on a range of national security issues,&quot; Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump said.

But the discussions alone suggest a shift toward a more assertive approach to address safe havens in Pakistan that have been blamed for in part helping turn Afghanistan&#39;s war into an intractable conflict.

Experts on America&#39;s longest war argue that militant safe havens in Pakistan have allowed Taliban-linked insurgents a place to plot deadly strikes in Afghanistan and regroup after ground offensives.

Although long mindful of Pakistan, the Trump administration in recent weeks has put more emphasis on the relationship with Islamabad in discussions as it hammers out a the regional strategy to be presented to Trump by mid-July, nearly six months after he took office, one official said.

&quot;We&#39;ve never really fully articulated what our strategy towards Pakistan is. The strategy will more clearly say what we want from Pakistan specifically,&quot; the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Other U.S. officials warn of divisions within the government about the right approach and question whether any mix of carrots and sticks can get Islamabad to change its behavior. At the end of the day, Washington needs a partner, even if an imperfect one, in nuclear-armed Pakistan, they say.

The United States is again poised to deploy thousands more troops in Afghanistan, an acknowledgment that U.S.-backed forces are not winning and Taliban militants are resurgent.

Without more pressure on militants within Pakistan who target Afghanistan, experts say additional U.S. troop deployments will fail to meet their ultimate objective: to pressure the Taliban to eventually negotiate peace.

&quot;I believe there will be a much harder U.S. line on Pakistan going forward than there has been in the past,&quot; Hamdullah Mohib, the Afghan ambassador to the United States, told Reuters, without citing specific measures under review.

Kabul has long been critical of Pakistan&#39;s role in Afghanistan.

Pakistan fiercely denies allowing any militants safe haven on its territory. It bristles at U.S. claims that Pakistan&#39;s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, has ties to Haqqani network militants blamed for some of the deadliest attacks in Afghanistan.

&quot;What Pakistan says is that we are already doing a lot and that our plate is already full,&quot; a senior Pakistani government source told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The source doubted the Trump administration would press too hard, saying: &quot;They don&rsquo;t want to push Pakistan to abandon their war against terrorism.&quot;

Pakistani officials point towards the toll militancy has taken on the country. Since 2003, almost 22,000 civilians and nearly 7,000 Pakistani security forces have been killed as a result of militancy, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, which tracks violence.

Experts say Pakistan&#39;s policy towards Afghanistan is also driven in part by fears that India will gain influence in Afghanistan.

IS PAKISTAN AN ALLY?

Nuclear-armed Pakistan won the status as a major non-NATO ally in 2004 from the George Bush administration, in what was at the time seen in part as recognition of its importance in the U.S. battle against al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents.

The status is mainly symbolic, allowing limited benefits such as giving Pakistan faster access to surplus U.S. military hardware.

Some U.S. officials and experts on the region scoff at the title.

&quot;Pakistan is not an ally. It&rsquo;s not North Korea or Iran. But it&rsquo;s not an ally,&quot; said Bruce Riedel, a Pakistan expert at the Brookings Institution.

But yanking the title would be seen by Pakistan as a major blow.

&quot;The Pakistanis would take that very seriously because it would be a slap at their honor,&quot; said a former U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Lisa Curtis, senior director for South and Central Asia at the National Security Council, co-authored a report with Husain Haqqani, Pakistan&#39;s former ambassador to Washington, in which they recommended the Trump administration warn Pakistan the status could be revoked in six months.

&quot;Thinking of Pakistan as an ally will continue to create problems for the next administration as it did for the last one,&quot; said the February report.

It was unclear how seriously the Trump administration was considering the proposal.

The growing danger to Afghanistan from suspected Pakistan-based militants was underscored by a devastating May 31 truck bomb that killed more than 80 people and wounded 460 in Afghanistan&#39;s capital, Kabul.

Afghanistan&#39;s main intelligence agency said the attack - one of the deadliest in memory in Kabul - had been carried out by the Haqqani network with assistance from Pakistan, a charge Islamabad denies.

Washington believes the strikes appeared to be the work of the Haqqani network, U.S. officials told Reuters.

U.S. frustration over the Haqqani&#39;s presence in Pakistan has been building for years. The United States designated the Haqqani network as a terrorist organization in 2012. U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, then the top U.S. military officer, told Congress in 2011 that the Haqqani network was a &quot;veritable arm&quot; of the ISI.

The potential U.S. pivot to a more assertive approach would be sharply different than the approach taken at the start of the Obama administration, when U.S. officials sought to court Pakistani leaders, including Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani.

David Sedney, who served as Obama&#39;s deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia from 2009 to 2013, said the attempt to turn Islamabad into a strategic partner was a &quot;disaster.&quot;

&quot;It didn&#39;t affect Pakistan&#39;s behavior one bit. In fact, I would argue it made Pakistan&#39;s behavior worse,&quot; Sedney said.

MORE DRONES, CASH CUT-OFF

Pakistan has received more than $33 billion in U.S. assistance since 2002, including more than $14 billion in so-called Coalition Support Funds (CSF), a U.S. Defense Department program to reimburse allies that have incurred costs in supporting counter-insurgency operations.

It is an important form of foreign currency for the nuclear-armed country and one that is getting particularly close scrutiny during the Trump administration review.

Last year, the Pentagon decided not to pay Pakistan $300 million in CSF funding after then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter declined to sign authorization that Pakistan was taking adequate action against the Haqqani network.

U.S. officials said the Trump administration was discussing withholding at least some assistance to Pakistan.

Curtis&#39; report also singled out the aid as a target.

But U.S. aid cuts could cede even more influence to China, which already has committed nearly $60 billion in investments in Pakistan.

Another option under review is broadening a drone campaign to penetrate deeper into Pakistan to target Haqqani fighters and other militants blamed for attacks in Afghanistan, U.S. officials and a Pakistan expert said.

&quot;Now the Americans (will be) saying, you aren&#39;t taking out our enemies, so therefore we are taking them out ourselves,&quot; the Pakistan expert, who declined to be identified, said.

Pakistan&#39;s army chief of staff last week criticized &quot;unilateral actions&quot; such as drone strikes as &quot;counterproductive and against (the) spirit of ongoing cooperation and intelligence sharing being diligently undertaken by Pakistan&quot;.

The Trump administration is also mulling the redirecting or withholding of some aid to Pakistan

President Donald Trump's administration appears ready to harden its approach toward Pakistan to crack down on Pakistan-based militants launching attacks in neighbouring Afghanistan, U.S. officials tell Reuters. Potential Trump administration responses being discussed include expanding U.S. drone strikes, redirecting or withholding some aid to Pakistan and perhaps eventually downgrading Pakistan's status as a major non-NATO ally, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Some U.S. officials, however, are skeptical of the prospects for success, arguing that years of previous U.S. efforts to curb Pakistan's support for militant groups have failed, and that already strengthening U.S. ties to India, Pakistan's arch-enemy, undermine chances of a breakthrough with Islamabad. U.S. officials say they seek greater cooperation with Pakistan, not a rupture in ties, once the administration finishes a regional review of the strategy guiding the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan. Precise actions have yet to be decided. Pakistan fiercely denies allowing any militants safe haven on its territory × The White House and Pentagon declined to comment on the review before its completion. Pakistan's embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "The United States and Pakistan continue to partner on a range of national security issues," Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump said. But the discussions alone suggest a shift toward a more assertive approach to address safe havens in Pakistan that have been blamed for in part helping turn Afghanistan's war into an intractable conflict. Experts on America's longest war argue that militant safe havens in Pakistan have allowed Taliban-linked insurgents a place to plot deadly strikes in Afghanistan and regroup after ground offensives. Although long mindful of Pakistan, the Trump administration in recent weeks has put more emphasis on the relationship with Islamabad in discussions as it hammers out a the regional strategy to be presented to Trump by mid-July, nearly six months after he took office, one official said. "We've never really fully articulated what our strategy towards Pakistan is. The strategy will more clearly say what we want from Pakistan specifically," the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Other U.S. officials warn of divisions within the government about the right approach and question whether any mix of carrots and sticks can get Islamabad to change its behavior. At the end of the day, Washington needs a partner, even if an imperfect one, in nuclear-armed Pakistan, they say. The United States is again poised to deploy thousands more troops in Afghanistan, an acknowledgment that U.S.-backed forces are not winning and Taliban militants are resurgent. Without more pressure on militants within Pakistan who target Afghanistan, experts say additional U.S. troop deployments will fail to meet their ultimate objective: to pressure the Taliban to eventually negotiate peace. "I believe there will be a much harder U.S. line on Pakistan going forward than there has been in the past," Hamdullah Mohib, the Afghan ambassador to the United States, told Reuters, without citing specific measures under review. Kabul has long been critical of Pakistan's role in Afghanistan. Pakistan fiercely denies allowing any militants safe haven on its territory. It bristles at U.S. claims that Pakistan's spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, has ties to Haqqani network militants blamed for some of the deadliest attacks in Afghanistan. "What Pakistan says is that we are already doing a lot and that our plate is already full," a senior Pakistani government source told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. The source doubted the Trump administration would press too hard, saying: "They don’t want to push Pakistan to abandon their war against terrorism." Pakistani officials point towards the toll militancy has taken on the country. Since 2003, almost 22,000 civilians and nearly 7,000 Pakistani security forces have been killed as a result of militancy, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, which tracks violence. Experts say Pakistan's policy towards Afghanistan is also driven in part by fears that India will gain influence in Afghanistan. IS PAKISTAN AN ALLY? Nuclear-armed Pakistan won the status as a major non-NATO ally in 2004 from the George Bush administration, in what was at the time seen in part as recognition of its importance in the U.S. battle against al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents. The status is mainly symbolic, allowing limited benefits such as giving Pakistan faster access to surplus U.S. military hardware. Some U.S. officials and experts on the region scoff at the title. "Pakistan is not an ally. It’s not North Korea or Iran. But it’s not an ally," said Bruce Riedel, a Pakistan expert at the Brookings Institution. But yanking the title would be seen by Pakistan as a major blow. "The Pakistanis would take that very seriously because it would be a slap at their honor," said a former U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Lisa Curtis, senior director for South and Central Asia at the National Security Council, co-authored a report with Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's former ambassador to Washington, in which they recommended the Trump administration warn Pakistan the status could be revoked in six months. "Thinking of Pakistan as an ally will continue to create problems for the next administration as it did for the last one," said the February report. It was unclear how seriously the Trump administration was considering the proposal. The growing danger to Afghanistan from suspected Pakistan-based militants was underscored by a devastating May 31 truck bomb that killed more than 80 people and wounded 460 in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul. Afghanistan's main intelligence agency said the attack - one of the deadliest in memory in Kabul - had been carried out by the Haqqani network with assistance from Pakistan, a charge Islamabad denies. Washington believes the strikes appeared to be the work of the Haqqani network, U.S. officials told Reuters. U.S. frustration over the Haqqani's presence in Pakistan has been building for years. The United States designated the Haqqani network as a terrorist organization in 2012. U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, then the top U.S. military officer, told Congress in 2011 that the Haqqani network was a "veritable arm" of the ISI. The potential U.S. pivot to a more assertive approach would be sharply different than the approach taken at the start of the Obama administration, when U.S. officials sought to court Pakistani leaders, including Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani. David Sedney, who served as Obama's deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia from 2009 to 2013, said the attempt to turn Islamabad into a strategic partner was a "disaster." "It didn't affect Pakistan's behavior one bit. In fact, I would argue it made Pakistan's behavior worse," Sedney said. MORE DRONES, CASH CUT-OFF Pakistan has received more than $33 billion in U.S. assistance since 2002, including more than $14 billion in so-called Coalition Support Funds (CSF), a U.S. Defense Department program to reimburse allies that have incurred costs in supporting counter-insurgency operations. It is an important form of foreign currency for the nuclear-armed country and one that is getting particularly close scrutiny during the Trump administration review. Last year, the Pentagon decided not to pay Pakistan $300 million in CSF funding after then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter declined to sign authorization that Pakistan was taking adequate action against the Haqqani network. U.S. officials said the Trump administration was discussing withholding at least some assistance to Pakistan. Curtis' report also singled out the aid as a target. But U.S. aid cuts could cede even more influence to China, which already has committed nearly $60 billion in investments in Pakistan. Another option under review is broadening a drone campaign to penetrate deeper into Pakistan to target Haqqani fighters and other militants blamed for attacks in Afghanistan, U.S. officials and a Pakistan expert said. "Now the Americans (will be) saying, you aren't taking out our enemies, so therefore we are taking them out ourselves," the Pakistan expert, who declined to be identified, said. Pakistan's army chief of staff last week criticized "unilateral actions" such as drone strikes as "counterproductive and against (the) spirit of ongoing cooperation and intelligence sharing being diligently undertaken by Pakistan".

Trump may expand drone strikes in Pakistan, to contain militants attacking Afghanistan

By Agnisheik Chatterji

The US administration&#39;s decision to open the possibility of redeploying thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan is a welcome one, but its success hinges on several factors.

US President Donald Trump Tuesday decided to empower the Pentagon to decide on the troop levels in Afghanistan, in his bid to &quot;win&quot; the stalemate in the war-torn country.

Not very long back -- even till 2015 -- the US was talking about an exit strategy from Afghanistan. They were looking to withdraw their troops by 2017. From 100,000 American soldiers in 2011, the US government has whittled down its presence to 8,400 troops, who are primarily engaged in non-combative roles.&nbsp;

But a rash of events turned that plan on its head. The pivot is primarily down to Washington&#39;s scrambled policy in the region that is bedevilled by a resurgent Taliban, a dormant Al Qaeda and a growing Islamic State.

There has been an increasing concern in the Pentagon about the Afghan security forces&#39; inability to withstand the annual Spring Offensive launched by the Taliban.&nbsp;

The fact that the US administration has spent close to $71 billion on training the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), coupled with an annual $23 billion expenditure on the reconstruction of the ravaged country, stakes in the Afghanistan war remain ambitiously high.&nbsp;

Despite spending billions of dollars in training the local forces, the Afghan government controls roughly 59.7&nbsp;per cent of districts in 2017, down from 72 per cent in November 2015. This is down to a resilient Taliban chipping away at the fraying stalemate in the country and failure of the US in ably training the security personnel.

The recent attack on American soldiers has also pressured the US government to get their act together in the country. Five soldiers have been killed since April to underscore the turmoil swirling in the tough terrains of the South Asian nation.

When Senator John McCain questioned the government&#39;s will to act on the Afghanistan conundrum, US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis admitted that they were still &quot;not winning&quot; the longest war in Afghanistan.

&quot;We are not winning in Afghanistan right now,&quot; Mattis said during Tuesday&#39;s congressional hearing, adding: &quot;And we will correct this as soon as possible.&quot;

Light-footprint approach&nbsp;

The US army has long wanted reinforcement of troops to combat the stasis that has gripped the ANSF too. About 35 per cent of the personnel do&nbsp;not re-enlist every year, according to the report submitted by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).

Mattis defined &quot;winning&quot; in Afghanistan as a situation where the Afghan government, with international help, drives the insurgency down to a level that local security forces can handle it.&nbsp;

Although additional troops on the ground might lessen violence and the Taliban juggernaut in the short- to medium-term, duration of their stay would be imperative for any positive outcome.

The Americans can&#39;t just expect to arrest the level of violence and make a hasty retreat by leaving behind a few soldiers in non-combative role. That is because it is unreasonable to train the local security agencies in three, four years and then leave them to fight the extremists. The local forces would need air and logistical support to thwart future battles.

An untimely &quot;right-sizing&quot; of US troops would thereby diminish or negate important capabilities in countering terrorist threats, financing and overseeing contracts.&nbsp;

US&#39; presence in Korea is a point in case where decades of military deployment has yielded a semblance of stability in the region.

As mentioned before, 35 per cent of personnel don&#39;t re-enlist, meaning that full recruitment to cover the gap would ultimately result in dilution of quality. Also, there have been several concerns about the ability of middle- to senior-level Afghan commanders&#39; ability to lead troops in combat.

So the decision to introduce more US military presence would be good news in the region, but the burgeoning costs of the war is fraught with peril and also fiscally unsustainable.

Negotiations remain a pipe dream

In 2011, the US had all the cards in their negotiation with the Taliban. The US had about 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and the Taliban were in the doldrums. But even then, the two parties failed to forge a peace plan as Taliban continued playing hardball.

So if the current administration hopes to push the years-long war into a negotiated settlement by reining in the Taliban, their plan is more likely to fall off the cliff.

Today&#39;s Taliban is a different beast. The group has splintered in the aftermath of their leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansour&#39;s death in 2016. Negotiating with a multi-headed group will be a nightmare for the White House.

The political infighting in the country is another factor that has precipitated Taliban&#39;s gains. Uncertainty in the corridors of power in Kabul and local governments have handed the Taliban a fertile ground to re-ignite their support among the masses.&nbsp;

The SIGAR 2017 report says: &quot;The National Unity Government grappled with political challenges ranging from defiance from Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum, a former warlord whose bodyguards are charged with sodomising a political opponent, to resolving conflicts with the parliament over a path to promised parliamentary elections and Afghanistan&rsquo;s 2019 presidential contest.&quot;&nbsp;

If the US has to be successful in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table, they have to upgrade the quality of polity in the country.

The US has to rectify its operational problems too, which has largely been marred by corruption.

Several Afghan security forces leaders have been prosecuted on corruption charges. There has also been widespread misuse of the funds sent by the US in the last few years, especially after they scaled down their presence.

The US will have to crack down on financial irregularities as well to sustain their project in the long run.&nbsp;

&#39;McMaster&#39;s War&#39;

The Trump administration&#39;s renewed policy in Afghanistan has been largely forged by national security advisor Lt Gen HR McMaster. So much so that certain sections of the White House have dubbed the fresh Afghan blueprint as &quot;McMaster&#39;s War&quot;.

The shift in decision-making from the White House to the Pentagon has been credited to McMaster.

He has been an endorser of Sun Tzu&#39;s &quot;The Art of War&quot; tenet which advocates winning the hearts and minds of the populace to help defeat the insurgency.

But the task of micro-managing the local population remains an uphill task as the Afghans would be wary, and weary, of yet another bout of foreign presence in their country.&nbsp;

US troops have been viewed by the locals with deep hostility due to the bloody quagmire they have endured for 16 years and wanton shootings perpetrated by US soldiers.&nbsp;

As Abraham Lincoln said in his 1858 &ldquo;A House Divided&rdquo; speech, &ldquo;If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it&quot;.

Therefore, it remains vital for the US administration to adopt a multi-pronged strategy -- not just miltarily -- to consolidate any gains they make in the country.

(WION)

The task of micro-managing the local population remains an uphill task as the Afghans would be wary, and weary, of yet another bout of foreign presence in their country.

By Agnisheik Chatterji The US administration's decision to open the possibility of redeploying thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan is a welcome one, but its success hinges on several factors. US President Donald Trump Tuesday decided to empower the Pentagon to decide on the troop levels in Afghanistan, in his bid to "win" the stalemate in the war-torn country. Not very long back -- even till 2015 -- the US was talking about an exit strategy from Afghanistan. They were looking to withdraw their troops by 2017. From 100,000 American soldiers in 2011, the US government has whittled down its presence to 8,400 troops, who are primarily engaged in non-combative roles. But a rash of events turned that plan on its head. The pivot is primarily down to Washington's scrambled policy in the region that is bedevilled by a resurgent Taliban, a dormant Al Qaeda and a growing Islamic State. There has been an increasing concern in the Pentagon about the Afghan security forces' inability to withstand the annual Spring Offensive launched by the Taliban. The fact that the US administration has spent close to $71 billion on training the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), coupled with an annual $23 billion expenditure on the reconstruction of the ravaged country, stakes in the Afghanistan war remain ambitiously high. Despite spending billions of dollars in training the local forces, the Afghan government controls roughly 59.7 per cent of districts in 2017, down from 72 per cent in November 2015. This is down to a resilient Taliban chipping away at the fraying stalemate in the country and failure of the US in ably training the security personnel. The recent attack on American soldiers has also pressured the US government to get their act together in the country. Five soldiers have been killed since April to underscore the turmoil swirling in the tough terrains of the South Asian nation. When Senator John McCain questioned the government's will to act on the Afghanistan conundrum, US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis admitted that they were still "not winning" the longest war in Afghanistan. "We are not winning in Afghanistan right now," Mattis said during Tuesday's congressional hearing, adding: "And we will correct this as soon as possible." Light-footprint approach The US army has long wanted reinforcement of troops to combat the stasis that has gripped the ANSF too. About 35 per cent of the personnel do not re-enlist every year, according to the report submitted by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). Mattis defined "winning" in Afghanistan as a situation where the Afghan government, with international help, drives the insurgency down to a level that local security forces can handle it. Although additional troops on the ground might lessen violence and the Taliban juggernaut in the short- to medium-term, duration of their stay would be imperative for any positive outcome. The Americans can't just expect to arrest the level of violence and make a hasty retreat by leaving behind a few soldiers in non-combative role. That is because it is unreasonable to train the local security agencies in three, four years and then leave them to fight the extremists. The local forces would need air and logistical support to thwart future battles. An untimely "right-sizing" of US troops would thereby diminish or negate important capabilities in countering terrorist threats, financing and overseeing contracts. US' presence in Korea is a point in case where decades of military deployment has yielded a semblance of stability in the region. As mentioned before, 35 per cent of personnel don't re-enlist, meaning that full recruitment to cover the gap would ultimately result in dilution of quality. Also, there have been several concerns about the ability of middle- to senior-level Afghan commanders' ability to lead troops in combat. So the decision to introduce more US military presence would be good news in the region, but the burgeoning costs of the war is fraught with peril and also fiscally unsustainable. Negotiations remain a pipe dream In 2011, the US had all the cards in their negotiation with the Taliban. The US had about 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and the Taliban were in the doldrums. But even then, the two parties failed to forge a peace plan as Taliban continued playing hardball. So if the current administration hopes to push the years-long war into a negotiated settlement by reining in the Taliban, their plan is more likely to fall off the cliff. Today's Taliban is a different beast. The group has splintered in the aftermath of their leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansour's death in 2016. Negotiating with a multi-headed group will be a nightmare for the White House. The political infighting in the country is another factor that has precipitated Taliban's gains. Uncertainty in the corridors of power in Kabul and local governments have handed the Taliban a fertile ground to re-ignite their support among the masses. The SIGAR 2017 report says: "The National Unity Government grappled with political challenges ranging from defiance from Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum, a former warlord whose bodyguards are charged with sodomising a political opponent, to resolving conflicts with the parliament over a path to promised parliamentary elections and Afghanistan’s 2019 presidential contest." If the US has to be successful in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table, they have to upgrade the quality of polity in the country. The US has to rectify its operational problems too, which has largely been marred by corruption. Several Afghan security forces leaders have been prosecuted on corruption charges. There has also been widespread misuse of the funds sent by the US in the last few years, especially after they scaled down their presence. The US will have to crack down on financial irregularities as well to sustain their project in the long run. 'McMaster's War' The Trump administration's renewed policy in Afghanistan has been largely forged by national security advisor Lt Gen HR McMaster. So much so that certain sections of the White House have dubbed the fresh Afghan blueprint as "McMaster's War". The shift in decision-making from the White House to the Pentagon has been credited to McMaster. He has been an endorser of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" tenet which advocates winning the hearts and minds of the populace to help defeat the insurgency. But the task of micro-managing the local population remains an uphill task as the Afghans would be wary, and weary, of yet another bout of foreign presence in their country. US troops have been viewed by the locals with deep hostility due to the bloody quagmire they have endured for 16 years and wanton shootings perpetrated by US soldiers. As Abraham Lincoln said in his 1858 “A House Divided” speech, “If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it". Therefore, it remains vital for the US administration to adopt a multi-pronged strategy -- not just miltarily -- to consolidate any gains they make in the country. (WION)

US plan to win Afghan stalemate is zero-sum game

By: Agni Chatterrji

The US administration&#39;s decision to open the possibility of redeploying thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan is a welcome one, but its success hinges on several factors.

US President Donald Trump Tuesday decided to empower the Pentagon to decide on the&nbsp;troop levels in Afghanistan, in his bid to &quot;win&quot; the stalemate&nbsp;in the war-torn country.

Not very long back -- even till 2015 --&nbsp;the US was talking about an exit strategy from Afghanistan. They were looking to withdraw their troops by 2017. But a rash of events turned that plan on its head.

[How many troops were there at the time they wanted to leave? Make this number clear, and the year, and describe the situation...it needs to be rock solid that the troop withdrawal is the sole/main cause of the inability to defeat what was a shrinking&nbsp;insurgency...]

&nbsp;

The pivot is primarily down to Washington&#39;s scrambled policy in the region that is bedevilled by a resurgent Taliban, a dormant Al Qaeda&nbsp;and a growing Islamic State.

There has been an increasing concern in the Pentagon about the Afghan security forces&#39; inability to withstand the annual Spring Offensive launched by the Taliban.&nbsp;

The fact that the US administration has spent close to $71&nbsp;billion on training the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), coupled with an annual $23 billion expenditure on reconstruction of the ravaged country, stakes in the Afghanistan war remain&nbsp;ambitiously high.&nbsp;

[this isn&#39;t annually, right? Why does the amount of fundin bear on the stakes? Isn&#39;t that ranking American dollars as more important than Afghan security? Why are the Afghans so unable to protect themselves if this much money has been spent on training them? That&#39;s a genuine question....I wonder where this money went....]

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Tellingly, the Afghan government controls roughly 52 per cent of districts in 2017, down from 72 per cent in November 2015. This is down to a resilient Taliban chipping away at the fraying stalemate in the country.&nbsp;

The recent attack on American soldiers has also pressured the US government to get their act together in the country. Five soldiers have been killed since April to underscore the turmoil swirling in the tough terrains of the South Asian nation.

When Senator John McCain questioned the government&#39;s will to act on the Afghanistan conundrum,&nbsp;US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis admitted that they were still &quot;not winning&quot; the longest war in Afghanistan.

&quot;We are not winning in Afghanistan right now,&quot; Mattis said during Tuesday&#39;s congressional hearing, adding: &quot;And we will correct this as soon as possible.&quot;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Light-footprint approach&nbsp;

The US army has&nbsp;long wanted reinforcement of troops to combat the stasis that has gripped the ANSF too. About 35 per cent of the force does not re-enlist every year, according to the report submitted by the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.sigar.mil/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction</a>&nbsp;(SIGAR) report.

[Which force, the ANSF, right? Grammer is a liiiiiittle unclear, here]

&nbsp;

According to Mattis, the Pentagon defines&nbsp;&quot;winning&quot; in Afghanistan as a situation where the Afghan government, with international help, drives the insurgency&nbsp;down to a level that local security forces can handle it.

[Hasn&#39;t the pentagon described their goal in explicit terms? Why use Mattis&#39; definition of the Pentagon&#39;s, not the Pentagon&#39;s?]

&nbsp;

Although additional troops on the ground might lessen&nbsp;violence and the Taliban juggernaut in the short- to medium-term, duration of their stay would be imperative for any positive outcome.

The Americans can&#39;t just expect to arrest the level of violence and make a hasty retreat by leaving behind a few soldiers in non-combative role. That is because it is unreasonable to train the local security agencies in three, four years and then leave them to fight the extremists. The local forces would need air and logistical support for them to thwart future battles.

[How can you describe the longest war in Afghanistan as &quot;hasty&quot;? Why, if they&#39;ve spent all those billions, aren&#39;t they able to?]

&nbsp;

An untimely &quot;right-sizing&quot; of US troops would thereby diminish or negate important capabilities in countering terrorist threats, financing and&nbsp;overseeing contracts.&nbsp;

US&#39; presence in Korea is a point in case where decades of military deployment has yielded a semblance of stability in the region.

As mentioned before, 35 per cent of personnel don&#39;t re-enlist, meaning that full recruitment to cover the gap would ultimately result in dilution of quality. Also, there have been several concerns about the ability of middle- to senior-level Afghan commanders&#39; ability to lead troops in combat.

So the decision to introduce more US military presence would be good news in the region, but the burgeoning fiscal costs of the war is fraught with peril.

[It sounds like it will fall to shit unless the Americans are permanently there, by your logic....is this not unsustainable? How much time and moneu should the US invest? Fuck, why are they even there in the first place??? When is enough enough?]

&nbsp;

Negotiations remain a pipe dream

In 2011, the US had all the cards in their negotiation with the Taliban.&nbsp;The US had about 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and the Taliban were in the doldrums. But even then, the two parties failed to forge a peace plan.

[Did the US try to make peace with the Taliban? Did they fail to forge a peace plan, or did they fail to make the Taliban surrender?]

&nbsp;

So if the current administration hopes to push the years-long war into a negotiated settlement by reining in the Taliban, their&nbsp;plan is more likely to fall of the cliff.

Today&#39;s Taliban is a different beast. The group has splintered in the aftermath of their leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansour&#39;s death in 2016. Negotiating with a multi-headed group will be a nightmare for the White House.

The political infighting in the country is another factor that has precipitated Taliban&#39;s gains. Uncertainty in the powers of corridor in Kabul and local governments have handed the Taliban a fertile ground to re-ignite their support among the masses.&nbsp;

The SIGAR 2017 report says: &quot;The National Unity Government grappled with political challenges ranging from defiance from Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum, a former warlord whose bodyguards are charged with sodomizing a political opponent, to resolving conflicts with the parliament over a path to promised parliamentary elections and Afghanistan&rsquo;s 2019 presidential contest.&quot;&nbsp;

If the US has to be successful in bringing the Taliban to the negotiation table, they have to upgrade the quality of polity in the country.

The US has to rectify its operational problems too, which has largely been marred by corruption.

Several security forces leaders have been prosecuted on corruption charges. There have also been widespread misuse of the funds sent by the US.

[Ahhh! Misuse of funds, classic...this make increasing deployment there seem like a worse not better idea, to me]

The US will&nbsp;have to crack down on financial irregularities as well to sustain their project in the long run.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&#39;McMaster&#39;s War&#39;

The Trump administration&#39;s renewed policy in Afghanistan has been largely forged by national security advisor&nbsp;Lt&nbsp;Gen&nbsp;HR&nbsp;McMaster. So much so that&nbsp;certain sections of the White House have dubbed the fresh Afghan blueprint as &quot;McMaster&#39;s War&quot;.

The shift in decision-making from the White House to the Pentagon has been credited to McMaster.

He has been an endorser of&nbsp;Sun Tzu&#39;s &quot;The Art of War&quot; tennet which advocates winning the hearts and minds of the populace to help defeat the insurgency.

[No Sun Tzu reference is necessary here...]

&nbsp;

But the task of micro-managing the local population remains an uphill task as the Afghans would be wary, and weary, of yet another bout of foreign presence in their country.&nbsp;

US troops have been viewed by the locals with deep hostility due to the bloody quagmire they have endured for 16 years. [Hasn&#39;t the US presence ever been welcome? If the US is unwelcome by the citizens and the Taliban, who are they there for? Why increase presence?]

As Abraham Lincoln said in his 1858 &ldquo;A House Divided&rdquo; speech, &ldquo;If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it&quot;.

Therefore, it remains vital for the US administration to adopt a multi-pronged strategy -- not just miltarily -- to consolidate any gains they make in the country.

By: Agni Chatterrji The US administration's decision to open the possibility of redeploying thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan is a welcome one, but its success hinges on several factors. US President Donald Trump Tuesday decided to empower the Pentagon to decide on the troop levels in Afghanistan, in his bid to "win" the stalemate in the war-torn country. Not very long back -- even till 2015 -- the US was talking about an exit strategy from Afghanistan. They were looking to withdraw their troops by 2017. But a rash of events turned that plan on its head. [How many troops were there at the time they wanted to leave? Make this number clear, and the year, and describe the situation...it needs to be rock solid that the troop withdrawal is the sole/main cause of the inability to defeat what was a shrinking insurgency...] The pivot is primarily down to Washington's scrambled policy in the region that is bedevilled by a resurgent Taliban, a dormant Al Qaeda and a growing Islamic State. There has been an increasing concern in the Pentagon about the Afghan security forces' inability to withstand the annual Spring Offensive launched by the Taliban. The fact that the US administration has spent close to $71 billion on training the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), coupled with an annual $23 billion expenditure on reconstruction of the ravaged country, stakes in the Afghanistan war remain ambitiously high. [this isn't annually, right? Why does the amount of fundin bear on the stakes? Isn't that ranking American dollars as more important than Afghan security? Why are the Afghans so unable to protect themselves if this much money has been spent on training them? That's a genuine question....I wonder where this money went....] Tellingly, the Afghan government controls roughly 52 per cent of districts in 2017, down from 72 per cent in November 2015. This is down to a resilient Taliban chipping away at the fraying stalemate in the country. The recent attack on American soldiers has also pressured the US government to get their act together in the country. Five soldiers have been killed since April to underscore the turmoil swirling in the tough terrains of the South Asian nation. When Senator John McCain questioned the government's will to act on the Afghanistan conundrum, US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis admitted that they were still "not winning" the longest war in Afghanistan. "We are not winning in Afghanistan right now," Mattis said during Tuesday's congressional hearing, adding: "And we will correct this as soon as possible." Light-footprint approach The US army has long wanted reinforcement of troops to combat the stasis that has gripped the ANSF too. About 35 per cent of the force does not re-enlist every year, according to the report submitted by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) report. [Which force, the ANSF, right? Grammer is a liiiiiittle unclear, here] According to Mattis, the Pentagon defines "winning" in Afghanistan as a situation where the Afghan government, with international help, drives the insurgency down to a level that local security forces can handle it. [Hasn't the pentagon described their goal in explicit terms? Why use Mattis' definition of the Pentagon's, not the Pentagon's?] Although additional troops on the ground might lessen violence and the Taliban juggernaut in the short- to medium-term, duration of their stay would be imperative for any positive outcome. The Americans can't just expect to arrest the level of violence and make a hasty retreat by leaving behind a few soldiers in non-combative role. That is because it is unreasonable to train the local security agencies in three, four years and then leave them to fight the extremists. The local forces would need air and logistical support for them to thwart future battles. [How can you describe the longest war in Afghanistan as "hasty"? Why, if they've spent all those billions, aren't they able to?] An untimely "right-sizing" of US troops would thereby diminish or negate important capabilities in countering terrorist threats, financing and overseeing contracts. US' presence in Korea is a point in case where decades of military deployment has yielded a semblance of stability in the region. As mentioned before, 35 per cent of personnel don't re-enlist, meaning that full recruitment to cover the gap would ultimately result in dilution of quality. Also, there have been several concerns about the ability of middle- to senior-level Afghan commanders' ability to lead troops in combat. So the decision to introduce more US military presence would be good news in the region, but the burgeoning fiscal costs of the war is fraught with peril. [It sounds like it will fall to shit unless the Americans are permanently there, by your logic....is this not unsustainable? How much time and moneu should the US invest? Fuck, why are they even there in the first place??? When is enough enough?] Negotiations remain a pipe dream In 2011, the US had all the cards in their negotiation with the Taliban. The US had about 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and the Taliban were in the doldrums. But even then, the two parties failed to forge a peace plan. [Did the US try to make peace with the Taliban? Did they fail to forge a peace plan, or did they fail to make the Taliban surrender?] So if the current administration hopes to push the years-long war into a negotiated settlement by reining in the Taliban, their plan is more likely to fall of the cliff. Today's Taliban is a different beast. The group has splintered in the aftermath of their leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansour's death in 2016. Negotiating with a multi-headed group will be a nightmare for the White House. The political infighting in the country is another factor that has precipitated Taliban's gains. Uncertainty in the powers of corridor in Kabul and local governments have handed the Taliban a fertile ground to re-ignite their support among the masses. The SIGAR 2017 report says: "The National Unity Government grappled with political challenges ranging from defiance from Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum, a former warlord whose bodyguards are charged with sodomizing a political opponent, to resolving conflicts with the parliament over a path to promised parliamentary elections and Afghanistan’s 2019 presidential contest." If the US has to be successful in bringing the Taliban to the negotiation table, they have to upgrade the quality of polity in the country. The US has to rectify its operational problems too, which has largely been marred by corruption. Several security forces leaders have been prosecuted on corruption charges. There have also been widespread misuse of the funds sent by the US. [Ahhh! Misuse of funds, classic...this make increasing deployment there seem like a worse not better idea, to me] The US will have to crack down on financial irregularities as well to sustain their project in the long run. 'McMaster's War' The Trump administration's renewed policy in Afghanistan has been largely forged by national security advisor Lt Gen HR McMaster. So much so that certain sections of the White House have dubbed the fresh Afghan blueprint as "McMaster's War". The shift in decision-making from the White House to the Pentagon has been credited to McMaster. He has been an endorser of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" tennet which advocates winning the hearts and minds of the populace to help defeat the insurgency. [No Sun Tzu reference is necessary here...] But the task of micro-managing the local population remains an uphill task as the Afghans would be wary, and weary, of yet another bout of foreign presence in their country. US troops have been viewed by the locals with deep hostility due to the bloody quagmire they have endured for 16 years. [Hasn't the US presence ever been welcome? If the US is unwelcome by the citizens and the Taliban, who are they there for? Why increase presence?] As Abraham Lincoln said in his 1858 “A House Divided” speech, “If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it". Therefore, it remains vital for the US administration to adopt a multi-pronged strategy -- not just miltarily -- to consolidate any gains they make in the country.

US redeploy troops in Afghanistan: Zero-sum game

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Wednesday he will present a new US military strategy for Afghanistan, along with adjusted troop numbers, in the coming weeks to President Donald Trump.

American military commanders in Afghanistan and the surrounding region have requested thousands of additional boots on the ground for months to boost the NATO troop presence there.

&quot;Together in the interagency, we will define the way ahead and I will set a US military commitment consistent with the commander in chief&#39;s strategic directions and his foreign policy, as dictated by Secretary of State Tillerson,&quot; Mattis told lawmakers during a hearing at the Senate Appropriations Committee.

&quot;The revised Afghanistan strategy with the new approach will be presented to the president for his approval in the coming weeks.&quot;

His remarks came a day after Trump granted the Pentagon authority to set troop levels in Afghanistan, currently at around 8,400.

Mattis said the decision would come in consultation with other US government agencies in a more comprehensive approach to the conflict.

Prior to the White House decision, Mattis had warned that the Taliban was surging -- having claimed a series of deadly attacks, including against Afghan military bases and positions -- and that America still was &quot;not winning&quot; in the country nearly 16 years after the US-led invasion there.&nbsp;

(AFP)

American military commanders in Afghanistan have requested thousands of additional boots on the ground for months to boost the NATO troop presence there

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Wednesday he will present a new US military strategy for Afghanistan, along with adjusted troop numbers, in the coming weeks to President Donald Trump. American military commanders in Afghanistan and the surrounding region have requested thousands of additional boots on the ground for months to boost the NATO troop presence there. "Together in the interagency, we will define the way ahead and I will set a US military commitment consistent with the commander in chief's strategic directions and his foreign policy, as dictated by Secretary of State Tillerson," Mattis told lawmakers during a hearing at the Senate Appropriations Committee. "The revised Afghanistan strategy with the new approach will be presented to the president for his approval in the coming weeks." His remarks came a day after Trump granted the Pentagon authority to set troop levels in Afghanistan, currently at around 8,400. Mattis said the decision would come in consultation with other US government agencies in a more comprehensive approach to the conflict. Prior to the White House decision, Mattis had warned that the Taliban was surging -- having claimed a series of deadly attacks, including against Afghan military bases and positions -- and that America still was "not winning" in the country nearly 16 years after the US-led invasion there. (AFP)

US to make Afghanistan troop announcement in weeks: Mattis

The US Defence Secretary Jim &quot;Mad Dog&quot;&nbsp;Mattis&nbsp;told the American Congress&nbsp;that the country is not winning in Afghanistan. This, in common words, means they are losing. Finally, someone acknowledged it.&nbsp;

A few months back, during a hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Nicholson, commander of the US forces in Afghanistan,&nbsp;had been more optimistic,&nbsp;defining the situation as a &quot;stalemate&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp;

According to the US military, the Afghan government can claim to control 60 per cent of the country&rsquo;s districts, 11 per cent less than the previous year. &nbsp;&quot;We recognise the need for urgency,&quot; Mattis said.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Trump vs Obama

US President Donald Trump decided to leave it to the Pentagon to decide how many troops are needed on the ground. This decision gives more power to the military, a change&nbsp;from the previous administration which&nbsp;carefully supervised&nbsp;all military deployments.&nbsp;

It has now become clear that Trump&rsquo;s foreign policy, at least when it comes to war-torn areas, is more troops, more bombs, more fighting. Coalition forces have increased the frequency&nbsp;of airstrikes in both Syria and Iraq. It has been recently documented that they have been using white phosphorous over Mosul, where many civilians still live.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Afghanistan&#39;s battered forces

Sixteen years and more than 2,300 military victims after the US invasion, Afghan Taliban are once again on the offensive, the Islamic State established a presence and cities are more prone to suicide attacks. The Afghan National Army (ANA) is tired, suffering and in a few cases vulnerable to Taliban infiltration. In 2016 alone they lost 6,000 soldiers.&nbsp;

The ANA faces shortages of up-to-standard equipment and, even worse, they lack ammunitions. Several military outposts are completely at the mercy of Taliban ambushes and do not even have enough bullets to try to hold their position. The most recent of such episodes happened in&nbsp;late May, when Taliban attacked a military outpost in Kandahar, killing 15 soldiers. A week earlier the same fate hit another outpost and ten Afghan soldiers lost their lives.&nbsp;

Afghans have a fighting spirit and the country&rsquo;s history proves it. They defeated every army who tried to conquer their land, but there is a limit to the sacrifice a nation can ask&nbsp;its soldiers. During a conflict dedication is important, but not enough.&nbsp;

The rampant corruption within the army ranks is also a major problem. At the end of March, Afghan defence officials communicated that more than a thousand military personnel, including generals and officers, had been fired on charges of corruption.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

History on their side?

The US military and the coalition forces have not been able to secure a lasting stability in Afghanistan, and a few thousand soldiers will not save&nbsp;the country. This is being presented as&nbsp;sending&nbsp;in reinforcements to win the war, when really&nbsp;they&nbsp;may be&nbsp;needed to prevent losing it.

Afghan history shows pretty blatantly that the solution does not lie in further military actions, but in a difficult and painful dialogue between the belligerents. National reconciliation, an honest judiciary system, people&rsquo;s empowerment and economic development are the foundation&nbsp;on which Afghanistan can&nbsp;build peace. Time has proved how bombs are not effective.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Rumours&nbsp;

In early May, media reported&nbsp;diplomatic rumours in Washington suggesting a possible deployment of 15,000 Indian soldiers in Afghanistan under the banner of the United Nations. This is just a very weak rumour, its origins are so unclear that it can hardly be taken into account. The Indian ambassador in Kabul, Mr. Manpreet Vohra, has denied any official communication on the matter between the two governments. &ldquo;There is no such proposal from the United Nations to the best of my knowledge,&rdquo; Mr. Vohra told WION.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

India in Afghanistan

If these media reports are to be believed, the move could result in a further destabilisation of Afghanistan. Many Taliban leaders and fighters are based out of Pakistan and are supported by the country&rsquo;s deep state. It is very likely that the reaction to a possible Indian deployment would be to increase the number of attacks, both against soldiers and civilians living in the country. This, for India, could also mean to &quot;bring the war home&quot;, increasing the risk of attacks within the country. Many people on the streets of Kabul are also fed up with war:&nbsp;They had enough foreign troops on their soil in the last decades, and nothing has changed.&nbsp;

India has been a precious ally to Afghanistan, and is putting a lot of effort in the reconstruction process. The Salma Dam is perhaps one of the largest infrastructure that India completed in the country, and it is directly benefitting the local population. Since 2001 India invested $2 billion in Afghanistan and in late 2016 it pledged another billion on top of that.

Afghanistan will benefit of the services provided by the&nbsp;satellite India recently launched and defined as&nbsp;&quot;a gift to South Asia&quot;. Indian doctors travel regularly to Afghanistan, and many Afghans are allowed to travel to India for medical purposes. All these investments are not made only out of generosity, there is a clear element of soft power. This is the way Delhi&nbsp;aims to&nbsp;solidify&nbsp;their position as major influencer of the South Asian region, and to isolate Islamabad as much as possible.&nbsp;&nbsp;

One can doubt the sincerity of their motivation.

Whatever&nbsp;the purity of their&nbsp;motivation,&nbsp;as far as long-term stability goes&nbsp;India&#39;s increased&nbsp;civilian investment, rather than America increasing&nbsp;military deployment, is what will improve Afghanistan.

(WION)

Trump pledged to let the Pentagon set troop levels in Afghanistan. Long-term this won't stabilise things, even if the Taliban is strong

The US Defence Secretary Jim "Mad Dog" Mattis told the American Congress that the country is not winning in Afghanistan. This, in common words, means they are losing. Finally, someone acknowledged it. A few months back, during a hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Nicholson, commander of the US forces in Afghanistan, had been more optimistic, defining the situation as a "stalemate". According to the US military, the Afghan government can claim to control 60 per cent of the country’s districts, 11 per cent less than the previous year. "We recognise the need for urgency," Mattis said. Trump vs Obama US President Donald Trump decided to leave it to the Pentagon to decide how many troops are needed on the ground. This decision gives more power to the military, a change from the previous administration which carefully supervised all military deployments. It has now become clear that Trump’s foreign policy, at least when it comes to war-torn areas, is more troops, more bombs, more fighting. Coalition forces have increased the frequency of airstrikes in both Syria and Iraq. It has been recently documented that they have been using white phosphorous over Mosul, where many civilians still live. Afghanistan's battered forces Sixteen years and more than 2,300 military victims after the US invasion, Afghan Taliban are once again on the offensive, the Islamic State established a presence and cities are more prone to suicide attacks. The Afghan National Army (ANA) is tired, suffering and in a few cases vulnerable to Taliban infiltration. In 2016 alone they lost 6,000 soldiers. The ANA faces shortages of up-to-standard equipment and, even worse, they lack ammunitions. Several military outposts are completely at the mercy of Taliban ambushes and do not even have enough bullets to try to hold their position. The most recent of such episodes happened in late May, when Taliban attacked a military outpost in Kandahar, killing 15 soldiers. A week earlier the same fate hit another outpost and ten Afghan soldiers lost their lives. Afghans have a fighting spirit and the country’s history proves it. They defeated every army who tried to conquer their land, but there is a limit to the sacrifice a nation can ask its soldiers. During a conflict dedication is important, but not enough. The rampant corruption within the army ranks is also a major problem. At the end of March, Afghan defence officials communicated that more than a thousand military personnel, including generals and officers, had been fired on charges of corruption. History on their side? The US military and the coalition forces have not been able to secure a lasting stability in Afghanistan, and a few thousand soldiers will not save the country. This is being presented as sending in reinforcements to win the war, when really they may be needed to prevent losing it. Afghan history shows pretty blatantly that the solution does not lie in further military actions, but in a difficult and painful dialogue between the belligerents. National reconciliation, an honest judiciary system, people’s empowerment and economic development are the foundation on which Afghanistan can build peace. Time has proved how bombs are not effective. Rumours In early May, media reported diplomatic rumours in Washington suggesting a possible deployment of 15,000 Indian soldiers in Afghanistan under the banner of the United Nations. This is just a very weak rumour, its origins are so unclear that it can hardly be taken into account. The Indian ambassador in Kabul, Mr. Manpreet Vohra, has denied any official communication on the matter between the two governments. “There is no such proposal from the United Nations to the best of my knowledge,” Mr. Vohra told WION. India in Afghanistan If these media reports are to be believed, the move could result in a further destabilisation of Afghanistan. Many Taliban leaders and fighters are based out of Pakistan and are supported by the country’s deep state. It is very likely that the reaction to a possible Indian deployment would be to increase the number of attacks, both against soldiers and civilians living in the country. This, for India, could also mean to "bring the war home", increasing the risk of attacks within the country. Many people on the streets of Kabul are also fed up with war: They had enough foreign troops on their soil in the last decades, and nothing has changed. India has been a precious ally to Afghanistan, and is putting a lot of effort in the reconstruction process. The Salma Dam is perhaps one of the largest infrastructure that India completed in the country, and it is directly benefitting the local population. Since 2001 India invested $2 billion in Afghanistan and in late 2016 it pledged another billion on top of that. Afghanistan will benefit of the services provided by the satellite India recently launched and defined as "a gift to South Asia". Indian doctors travel regularly to Afghanistan, and many Afghans are allowed to travel to India for medical purposes. All these investments are not made only out of generosity, there is a clear element of soft power. This is the way Delhi aims to solidify their position as major influencer of the South Asian region, and to isolate Islamabad as much as possible. One can doubt the sincerity of their motivation. Whatever the purity of their motivation, as far as long-term stability goes India's increased civilian investment, rather than America increasing military deployment, is what will improve Afghanistan. (WION)

Analysis from Kabul: Afghanistan needs civilian investment, not bombs

Pentagon chief Jim Mattis told exasperated lawmakers Tuesday that America still is &quot;not winning&quot; in Afghanistan, as US military commanders push for additional troops to help stabilise the country&#39;s security crisis.

Mattis&#39;s latest assessment comes nearly 16 years after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and amid a war that continues to claim the lives of US troops each year -- and those of thousands of local forces and civilians.

The &quot;Taliban had a good year last year, they are trying to have a good one this year,&quot; Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee at a hearing about the Pentagon&#39;s budget.

&quot;Right now I believe the enemy is surging.&quot;

US military commanders, who saw fragile security gains eroded under Obama-era troop draw-downs, have been pushing for a new strategy that could see thousands of additional soldiers deploy to Afghanistan to help train and advise beleaguered Afghan partners.

Media reports have said Mattis is considering asking for 3,000 to 5,000 additional US and NATO troops, but the defence chief has said little on the matter.&nbsp;

In February, General John Nicholson, who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, warned that he needs &quot;a few thousand&quot; more troops to reverse what he called a stalemate.

Despite months of expectation that a new Afghanistan strategy announcement is imminent, Mattis said this would not be ready before mid-July.

Republican Senator John McCain, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, voiced his &quot;palpable&quot; frustration.

&quot;We&#39;re now six months into this administration, we still haven&#39;t got a strategy for Afghanistan,&quot; McCain said, noting it was hard to get behind an Afghanistan budget request without knowing what the plan is.&nbsp;

&quot;We know what the strategy was for the last eight years: Don&#39;t lose. That hasn&#39;t worked.&quot;

Mattis acknowledged the reality on the ground.

&quot;We are not winning in Afghanistan right now. We will correct this as soon as possible,&quot; he said.

Residual force

The defence chief, who was a Marine combat commander in Afghanistan at the start of the war, stressed America must not walk away from the country and suggested a long-term residual US force needs to remain to help the Afghan army maintain a baseline of security.

&quot;It&#39;s going to be an era of frequent skirmishing and it&#39;s going to require a change in our approach from the last several years if we&#39;re to get it to that position,&quot; Mattis said.&nbsp;

The Afghan conflict is the longest in American history, with US-led NATO troops at war there since 2001, after the ousting of the Taliban regime just months after the September 11 terror attacks in the United States.

The ongoing security crisis has seen not just the Taliban gain ground, but also the emergence of other groups such as a local Islamic State affiliate.&nbsp;

On Saturday, the Taliban claimed responsibility for an insider attack in which an Afghan commando turned his weapon on American troops, killing three and wounding another.&nbsp;

US troops in Afghanistan number about 8,400 today, and there are another 5,000 from NATO allies, who mainly serve in a training and advisory capacity.

&nbsp;

The Pentagon chief's statement comes?nearly 16 years after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and at a time when US military commanders are pushing for additional troops to help stabilise the country's security crisis

Pentagon chief Jim Mattis told exasperated lawmakers Tuesday that America still is "not winning" in Afghanistan, as US military commanders push for additional troops to help stabilise the country's security crisis. Mattis's latest assessment comes nearly 16 years after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and amid a war that continues to claim the lives of US troops each year -- and those of thousands of local forces and civilians. The "Taliban had a good year last year, they are trying to have a good one this year," Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee at a hearing about the Pentagon's budget. "Right now I believe the enemy is surging." US military commanders, who saw fragile security gains eroded under Obama-era troop draw-downs, have been pushing for a new strategy that could see thousands of additional soldiers deploy to Afghanistan to help train and advise beleaguered Afghan partners. Media reports have said Mattis is considering asking for 3,000 to 5,000 additional US and NATO troops, but the defence chief has said little on the matter. In February, General John Nicholson, who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, warned that he needs "a few thousand" more troops to reverse what he called a stalemate. Despite months of expectation that a new Afghanistan strategy announcement is imminent, Mattis said this would not be ready before mid-July. Republican Senator John McCain, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, voiced his "palpable" frustration. "We're now six months into this administration, we still haven't got a strategy for Afghanistan," McCain said, noting it was hard to get behind an Afghanistan budget request without knowing what the plan is. "We know what the strategy was for the last eight years: Don't lose. That hasn't worked." Mattis acknowledged the reality on the ground. "We are not winning in Afghanistan right now. We will correct this as soon as possible," he said. Residual force The defence chief, who was a Marine combat commander in Afghanistan at the start of the war, stressed America must not walk away from the country and suggested a long-term residual US force needs to remain to help the Afghan army maintain a baseline of security. "It's going to be an era of frequent skirmishing and it's going to require a change in our approach from the last several years if we're to get it to that position," Mattis said. The Afghan conflict is the longest in American history, with US-led NATO troops at war there since 2001, after the ousting of the Taliban regime just months after the September 11 terror attacks in the United States. The ongoing security crisis has seen not just the Taliban gain ground, but also the emergence of other groups such as a local Islamic State affiliate. On Saturday, the Taliban claimed responsibility for an insider attack in which an Afghan commando turned his weapon on American troops, killing three and wounding another. US troops in Afghanistan number about 8,400 today, and there are another 5,000 from NATO allies, who mainly serve in a training and advisory capacity.

US not winning in Afghanistan: Mattis

&ldquo;We will stay here until the government will grant us our rights. We will stay here for one day, one week, one month or one year, whatever it takes,&rdquo; says Hangeza Habibia,&nbsp;an Afghan woman in her thirties. She is one of the rare women&nbsp;found&nbsp;in&nbsp;the protest tents around Kabul. &nbsp;

&ldquo;Every woman who is willing to protest should come. You see that I am alone now, but normally 30 per cent of the people in this tent are women.&rdquo;&nbsp;

Demonstrators like Hangeza&nbsp;ask&nbsp;for increased&nbsp;safety in&nbsp;Kabul&#39;s streets. &ldquo;We are coming here because in one day we had 600 people murdered or injured. We are coming here to protect our brothers and to avoid that their blood floods the street once again. Who will grant that we are not killed tomorrow? Who will grant that we can stay safe in our houses?&rdquo;&nbsp;

Demonstrators criticise both President Ashraf Ghani and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Abdullah Abdullah, requesting they&nbsp;either resign or&nbsp;fire their topmost security advisers.&nbsp;

The May 31 attack which&nbsp;killed more than a hundred people&nbsp;is where it all started, the source&nbsp;of the current bout&nbsp;of political instability throughout&nbsp;the city. To make things worse, suicide attackers targeted the&nbsp;funeral, killing another seven people and injuring 119.

People took to the street to demand more security. &nbsp;

Police forces reacted aggressively:&nbsp;They started shooting against the crowd.&nbsp;Nine protestors died and many got injured. According to police sources, only two people died and their men started shooting because protesters were carrying weapons and started shooting first.&nbsp;

&ldquo;The Afghan national police shot against our chests. They killed people during demonstrations and this is why we put up these tents,&rdquo; says 35-year-old Raheem Mukhtari. He has been part of the protests since the very beginning, and like&nbsp;many others has no intention of&nbsp;leaving.&nbsp;

More than security

There are at least six tents across the city where people gather to rally and chant slogans throughout the day. The city&rsquo;s security is no longer&nbsp;the sole cause&nbsp;of the protest; the protesters are bonded by&nbsp;a&nbsp;mix of anger and&nbsp;frustration stemming from&nbsp;the country&rsquo;s brutal&nbsp;economy, its low&nbsp;job prospects and, of course, the increased&nbsp;violence.&nbsp;A feeling of mistrust towards the government has always accompanied President Ghani; The recent massive explosion functioned as an ignitor,&nbsp;transforming the general sentiment of mistrust into&nbsp;permanent protest.&nbsp;

Many political groups and parties&nbsp;also feel sidelined, and would be happy to see Ghani&rsquo;s presidency&nbsp;end.&nbsp;

&ldquo;I fought for this country, I spilled my own blood,&rdquo; shouts a man in his forties from the tent&#39;s stage. &ldquo;And for what? Now, wherever I stamp my foot I only see blood coming out from this soil.&rdquo;&nbsp;

Several tents display&nbsp;banners with a crossed-out&nbsp;picture of President Ghani.&nbsp;

&ldquo;We are asking to the government to resign, they did not deliver what they promised during the election and we want them to go. Every day we have martyrs and new killings. We want Abdullah Abdullah and Ghani to resign, we want a temporary government until they organise new elections,&rdquo; says Ameen Ameni, a 24-year-old demonstrator.&nbsp;

The tents are not very crowded and the protest does not seem&nbsp;capable of crossing the city&rsquo;s boundaries. &nbsp;

This does not mean that things are under control though. Kabul is a city full of weapons and informal political militias who are ready, and often willing,&nbsp;to enter in action if requested to. The capital&nbsp;is not the entire country&nbsp;but the crucial power centres are here, and that is where much of the country&rsquo;s political&nbsp;and economical&nbsp;game is decided.&nbsp;

Protesters say that they do not belong to any political party, but listening to the many informal conversations in and around the tents, it turns out many of them are sympathisers of the influential political party, Jamiat-e Islami, currently led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Salahuddin Rabbani. According to the non-profit research organisation Afghanistan Analyst Network, the party has not yet decided its position on&nbsp;whether or not they want street riots to end.&nbsp;So far,&nbsp;they have not said or done anything to stop or calm the people.&nbsp;

Given&nbsp;recent events, the request for safety and stability is totally legitimate, but the political turn that the protest is taking could become dangerous. The Kabul &quot;tent sit-ins&quot;, even if not visibly massive, contain all the ingredients to give rise to&nbsp;countrywide instability and&nbsp;a power vacuum; Both, possibly&nbsp;the last two things Afghanistan currently needs.&nbsp;

Watch:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="videos-block">
<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9"><iframe class="embed-responsive-item" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2kPyZil0-I0"></iframe></div>
</div>

<div class="media-description">
WIONs Daniele Pagani is in Kabul tracking the developments there. He brings this ground report on the mood on the streets of Kabul (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

(WION)

The increase in attacks in Kabul has brought out other economic grievances. The result of this mix could be more instability and a power vacuum

“We will stay here until the government will grant us our rights. We will stay here for one day, one week, one month or one year, whatever it takes,” says Hangeza Habibia, an Afghan woman in her thirties. She is one of the rare women found in the protest tents around Kabul. “Every woman who is willing to protest should come. You see that I am alone now, but normally 30 per cent of the people in this tent are women.” Demonstrators like Hangeza ask for increased safety in Kabul's streets. “We are coming here because in one day we had 600 people murdered or injured. We are coming here to protect our brothers and to avoid that their blood floods the street once again. Who will grant that we are not killed tomorrow? Who will grant that we can stay safe in our houses?” Demonstrators criticise both President Ashraf Ghani and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Abdullah Abdullah, requesting they either resign or fire their topmost security advisers. The May 31 attack which killed more than a hundred people is where it all started, the source of the current bout of political instability throughout the city. To make things worse, suicide attackers targeted the funeral, killing another seven people and injuring 119. People took to the street to demand more security. Police forces reacted aggressively: They started shooting against the crowd. Nine protestors died and many got injured. According to police sources, only two people died and their men started shooting because protesters were carrying weapons and started shooting first. “The Afghan national police shot against our chests. They killed people during demonstrations and this is why we put up these tents,” says 35-year-old Raheem Mukhtari. He has been part of the protests since the very beginning, and like many others has no intention of leaving. More than security There are at least six tents across the city where people gather to rally and chant slogans throughout the day. The city’s security is no longer the sole cause of the protest; the protesters are bonded by a mix of anger and frustration stemming from the country’s brutal economy, its low job prospects and, of course, the increased violence. A feeling of mistrust towards the government has always accompanied President Ghani; The recent massive explosion functioned as an ignitor, transforming the general sentiment of mistrust into permanent protest. Many political groups and parties also feel sidelined, and would be happy to see Ghani’s presidency end. “I fought for this country, I spilled my own blood,” shouts a man in his forties from the tent's stage. “And for what? Now, wherever I stamp my foot I only see blood coming out from this soil.” Several tents display banners with a crossed-out picture of President Ghani. “We are asking to the government to resign, they did not deliver what they promised during the election and we want them to go. Every day we have martyrs and new killings. We want Abdullah Abdullah and Ghani to resign, we want a temporary government until they organise new elections,” says Ameen Ameni, a 24-year-old demonstrator. The tents are not very crowded and the protest does not seem capable of crossing the city’s boundaries. This does not mean that things are under control though. Kabul is a city full of weapons and informal political militias who are ready, and often willing, to enter in action if requested to. The capital is not the entire country but the crucial power centres are here, and that is where much of the country’s political and economical game is decided. Protesters say that they do not belong to any political party, but listening to the many informal conversations in and around the tents, it turns out many of them are sympathisers of the influential political party, Jamiat-e Islami, currently led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Salahuddin Rabbani. According to the non-profit research organisation Afghanistan Analyst Network, the party has not yet decided its position on whether or not they want street riots to end. So far, they have not said or done anything to stop or calm the people. Given recent events, the request for safety and stability is totally legitimate, but the political turn that the protest is taking could become dangerous. The Kabul "tent sit-ins", even if not visibly massive, contain all the ingredients to give rise to countrywide instability and a power vacuum; Both, possibly the last two things Afghanistan currently needs. Watch: WIONs Daniele Pagani is in Kabul tracking the developments there. He brings this ground report on the mood on the streets of Kabul (WION) × (WION)

WION Exclusive: Afganistan ground report

A rocket struck an Indian diplomatic compound in the Afghan capital of Kabul on Tuesday, police said, as representatives of about two dozen international delegations met a kilometre or so away to discuss efforts to end violence.

Sirens and warnings of &quot;incoming&quot; missiles sounded in a number of embassies, followed by a dull thump as the rocket exploded.

Police said no one was injured in the blast, which struck a tennis court, a few blocks away from where the meeting was held.

Notoriously inaccurate, rockets are an occasion fired into the city, often towards the fortified downtown area that houses not only the Indian embassy, but a number of other foreign delegations, the headquarters of the international military mission, and Afghan government ministries.

On May 31, a huge truck bomb detonated outside gates leading to the fortified area, killing more than 150 Afghans and wounding hundreds.

That blast caused serious damage to the German embassy, and lighter damage to the Indian and other embassies nearby.

A bomb attack on the Indian embassy in 2008 killed more than 40 people.

(Reuters)

Police said no one was injured in the blast, which struck a tennis court

A rocket struck an Indian diplomatic compound in the Afghan capital of Kabul on Tuesday, police said, as representatives of about two dozen international delegations met a kilometre or so away to discuss efforts to end violence. Sirens and warnings of "incoming" missiles sounded in a number of embassies, followed by a dull thump as the rocket exploded. Police said no one was injured in the blast, which struck a tennis court, a few blocks away from where the meeting was held. Notoriously inaccurate, rockets are an occasion fired into the city, often towards the fortified downtown area that houses not only the Indian embassy, but a number of other foreign delegations, the headquarters of the international military mission, and Afghan government ministries. On May 31, a huge truck bomb detonated outside gates leading to the fortified area, killing more than 150 Afghans and wounding hundreds. That blast caused serious damage to the German embassy, and lighter damage to the Indian and other embassies nearby. A bomb attack on the Indian embassy in 2008 killed more than 40 people. (Reuters)

Rocket hits Indian embassy area in Kabul, no casualties

An explosion in the western part of Afghanistan has killed seven civilians and has injured another 16, CNN reports.

A spokesman for Herat&#39;s governor, Jilani Farhad, said the blast took place at about 3 pm local time, near the northern gate of the Great Mosque of Herat, CNN reports.

Farhad told CNN&nbsp;an investigation is still underway.

Reuters cites officials who say that explosives were believed to be hidden in a motorcycle left in a parking area outside the Jama Masjid, a large 12th century mosque known for intricate blue tiles. Near the border with Iran, Herat is one of Afghanistan&#39;s largest cities.

This is the latest attack in Afghanistan in what has been a . On Wednesday, a suicide truck-bomb attack killed 150 people and wounded hundreds more.

(WION)

The blast took place at about 3 pm local time, near the northern gate of the Great Mosque of Herat, said the governor's spokesman

An explosion in the western part of Afghanistan has killed seven civilians and has injured another 16, CNN reports. A spokesman for Herat's governor, Jilani Farhad, said the blast took place at about 3 pm local time, near the northern gate of the Great Mosque of Herat, CNN reports. Farhad told CNN an investigation is still underway. Reuters cites officials who say that explosives were believed to be hidden in a motorcycle left in a parking area outside the Jama Masjid, a large 12th century mosque known for intricate blue tiles. Near the border with Iran, Herat is one of Afghanistan's largest cities. This is the latest attack in Afghanistan in what has been a . On Wednesday, a suicide truck-bomb attack killed 150 people and wounded hundreds more. (WION)

Explosion in western Afghanistan kills 7, injures 16: CNN

Streets in the centre of the Afghan capital Kabul were closed on Saturday as authorities tried to prevent a repeat of a demonstration that degenerated into clashes between protesters and police and left four people dead.

A rally against the government on Friday following this week&#39;s devastating truck bomb attack in Kabul saw hours of angry confrontation between protesters and police, who fired into the air to drive back crowds trying to cross security cordons and reach the presidential palace.

At least four people were killed and 15 wounded in the gunfire, drawing condemnation from human rights group Amnesty International and leading the United Nations envoy in&nbsp;Afghanistan to appeal for calm.

A small group of protesters remained near the blast site in the centre of town, sheltering from the sun in open tents.

But otherwise security authorities in Kabul banned protests and demonstrations, citing the risk of attacks on large gatherings of people.

Although Saturday is a normal working day in&nbsp;Afghanistan, large parts of the city were blocked off, with armed checkpoints set up and armoured vehicles patrolling the streets.

The unrest has heaped pressure on the government of President Ashraf Ghani which has faced increasing public anger over its inability to ensure security in the capital following a string of high profile suicide attacks.

Wednesday&#39;s truck bomb, which killed more than 80 people and wounded some 460, was one of the worst since the U.

IS.-led campaign to oust the Taliban in 2001 but in other respects it scarcely differed from a long series of previous attacks.

In the first three months of the year at least 715 civilians were killed, after almost 3,500 in 2016, the deadliest year on record for Afghan civilians.

(Reuters)

Four people died on Friday in an anti-government rally following this week's devastating truck bomb attack in the city

Streets in the centre of the Afghan capital Kabul were closed on Saturday as authorities tried to prevent a repeat of a demonstration that degenerated into clashes between protesters and police and left four people dead. A rally against the government on Friday following this week's devastating truck bomb attack in Kabul saw hours of angry confrontation between protesters and police, who fired into the air to drive back crowds trying to cross security cordons and reach the presidential palace. At least four people were killed and 15 wounded in the gunfire, drawing condemnation from human rights group Amnesty International and leading the United Nations envoy in Afghanistan to appeal for calm. A small group of protesters remained near the blast site in the centre of town, sheltering from the sun in open tents. But otherwise security authorities in Kabul banned protests and demonstrations, citing the risk of attacks on large gatherings of people. Although Saturday is a normal working day in Afghanistan, large parts of the city were blocked off, with armed checkpoints set up and armoured vehicles patrolling the streets. The unrest has heaped pressure on the government of President Ashraf Ghani which has faced increasing public anger over its inability to ensure security in the capital following a string of high profile suicide attacks. Wednesday's truck bomb, which killed more than 80 people and wounded some 460, was one of the worst since the U. IS.-led campaign to oust the Taliban in 2001 but in other respects it scarcely differed from a long series of previous attacks. In the first three months of the year at least 715 civilians were killed, after almost 3,500 in 2016, the deadliest year on record for Afghan civilians. (Reuters)

Afghanistan: Kabul on lock down after protesters clash with police

At least 19&nbsp;people have been killed and several injured in a blast in Kabul during the funeral ceremony of a man who was killed in Friday&#39;s antigovernment protests, reported Reuters.

Saturday&#39;s blast came at a time when the city of Kabul was under a lockdown in a bid to prevent protesters from coming on the streets to prevent a repeat of Friday&#39;s bloody confrontation between antigovernment protesters and the Afghan police.

President Ashraf Ghani took to twitter to express his anguish over the explosions.

&quot;The country is under attack,&quot; Ghani said in a message on Twitter. &quot;We must be strong and united.&quot;

Kabul&#39;s Italian-run Emergency Hospital said 19 people had been reported killed and 16 wounded had been brought to the hospital. The interior ministry said there were six dead and 87 wounded, Reuters reported.

&quot;There were sounds of explosions everywhere and I saw my hands and face were on fire,&quot; said Mohammad Azim, who was being treated for burns at the Emergency Hospital. &quot;There were parts of human bodies everywhere.&quot;

Dr Abdullah Abdullah, who is the chief executive of Afghanistan, was also present at the funeral of the man who was the son of a senator. His official twitter handle said that he is safe.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><twitterwidget class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" data-tweet-id="870972158759112704" id="twitter-widget-0" style="position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; transform: rotate(0deg); max-width: 100%; width: 500px; min-width: 220px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"></twitterwidget><script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&quot;People were blown to pieces&quot; due to the impact of the blasts, a witness told AFP.

The interior ministry said that it is unclear what caused the explosions.

&quot;We don&#39;t know what caused the explosions. Initial reports show 15 people have been killed and wounded,&quot; interior ministry spokesman Najib Danish said on Twitter.&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from agencies)

The blast occurred at a time when Kabul is witnessing protests by people against worsening security scenario

At least 19 people have been killed and several injured in a blast in Kabul during the funeral ceremony of a man who was killed in Friday's antigovernment protests, reported Reuters. Saturday's blast came at a time when the city of Kabul was under a lockdown in a bid to prevent protesters from coming on the streets to prevent a repeat of Friday's bloody confrontation between antigovernment protesters and the Afghan police. President Ashraf Ghani took to twitter to express his anguish over the explosions. "The country is under attack," Ghani said in a message on Twitter. "We must be strong and united." Kabul's Italian-run Emergency Hospital said 19 people had been reported killed and 16 wounded had been brought to the hospital. The interior ministry said there were six dead and 87 wounded, Reuters reported. "There were sounds of explosions everywhere and I saw my hands and face were on fire," said Mohammad Azim, who was being treated for burns at the Emergency Hospital. "There were parts of human bodies everywhere." Dr Abdullah Abdullah, who is the chief executive of Afghanistan, was also present at the funeral of the man who was the son of a senator. His official twitter handle said that he is safe. × "People were blown to pieces" due to the impact of the blasts, a witness told AFP. The interior ministry said that it is unclear what caused the explosions. "We don't know what caused the explosions. Initial reports show 15 people have been killed and wounded," interior ministry spokesman Najib Danish said on Twitter. (WION with inputs from agencies)

Afghanistan: At least 19 killed in blast near funeral of man killed during Kabul protests

Afghanistan has&nbsp;cancelled proposed home and away cricket fixtures with Pakistan after a deadly bomb attack blamed by the country&#39;s intelligence agency on militants allegedly backed by Islamabad.

Pakistan were set to play their first Twenty20 match in Kabul later this year in what was seen as an opportunity for the neighbours to ease tensions over border skirmishes and alleged proxy warfare.

The Kabul match, set for July or August, would have been followed by a fixture in Pakistan and a full series at an unspecified date.

But the Afghanistan Cricket Board issued a strongly worded statement late on Wednesday, cancelling the matches in light of a truck bombing in the city&#39;s diplomatic quarter that killed at least 90 people.

No group has claimed responsibility for Wednesday&#39;s attack, although the Taliban has denied involvement.

&quot;The ACB hereby cancel all kinds of cricket matches and initial mutual relationship agreement with the Pakistan Cricket Board,&quot; the Afghan board said on its Facebook page.

&quot;No agreement of friendly matches and mutual relationship agreement is possible with a country where terrorists are housed and provided safe havens.&quot;&nbsp;

Afghanistan&#39;s intelligence agency has blamed the Taliban-allied Haqqani Network for the attack, which has been linked to Pakistan&#39;s military in the past.

&nbsp;

Isolation:

The development leaves Pakistan&#39;s cricketers even more isolated in the region.&nbsp;

India has refused to play a full series since the 2008 Mumbai attacks, while ties with fellow Test team Bangladesh have also soured after Pakistan pulled out of a planned series in July.

Pakistani officials said they were unhappy that Bangladesh were not willing to send their team to Pakistan.

Only minnows Zimbabwe have been willing to tour the insecurity-wracked country since a 2009 militant attack on the visiting Sri Lanka team.

Cricketing relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan were not always so frosty. Afghans learned to play cricket in refugee camps in Pakistan after they were forced to leave their homes in the wake of the Soviet invasion in 1979.

The sport struggled to get a foothold in Afghanistan under the hardline Taliban, but has become hugely popular since the Islamist regime was toppled in a US-led invasion in 2001.

While Pakistan has supported the Afghan team by supplying equipment and arranging fixtures with the fledgling side, rival India has also been keen to lend its support.

Last year, Afghanistan&#39;s national team shifted its base from Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates to Noida, Delhi, while India&#39;s former batsman Lalchand Rajput replaced Pakistan&#39;s Inzamam-ul-Haq as their national team coach.

(AFP)

'No agreement of friendly matches and mutual relationship agreement is possible with a country where terrorists are housed'

Afghanistan has cancelled proposed home and away cricket fixtures with Pakistan after a deadly bomb attack blamed by the country's intelligence agency on militants allegedly backed by Islamabad. Pakistan were set to play their first Twenty20 match in Kabul later this year in what was seen as an opportunity for the neighbours to ease tensions over border skirmishes and alleged proxy warfare. The Kabul match, set for July or August, would have been followed by a fixture in Pakistan and a full series at an unspecified date. But the Afghanistan Cricket Board issued a strongly worded statement late on Wednesday, cancelling the matches in light of a truck bombing in the city's diplomatic quarter that killed at least 90 people. No group has claimed responsibility for Wednesday's attack, although the Taliban has denied involvement. "The ACB hereby cancel all kinds of cricket matches and initial mutual relationship agreement with the Pakistan Cricket Board," the Afghan board said on its Facebook page. "No agreement of friendly matches and mutual relationship agreement is possible with a country where terrorists are housed and provided safe havens." Afghanistan's intelligence agency has blamed the Taliban-allied Haqqani Network for the attack, which has been linked to Pakistan's military in the past. Isolation: The development leaves Pakistan's cricketers even more isolated in the region. India has refused to play a full series since the 2008 Mumbai attacks, while ties with fellow Test team Bangladesh have also soured after Pakistan pulled out of a planned series in July. Pakistani officials said they were unhappy that Bangladesh were not willing to send their team to Pakistan. Only minnows Zimbabwe have been willing to tour the insecurity-wracked country since a 2009 militant attack on the visiting Sri Lanka team. Cricketing relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan were not always so frosty. Afghans learned to play cricket in refugee camps in Pakistan after they were forced to leave their homes in the wake of the Soviet invasion in 1979. The sport struggled to get a foothold in Afghanistan under the hardline Taliban, but has become hugely popular since the Islamist regime was toppled in a US-led invasion in 2001. While Pakistan has supported the Afghan team by supplying equipment and arranging fixtures with the fledgling side, rival India has also been keen to lend its support. Last year, Afghanistan's national team shifted its base from Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates to Noida, Delhi, while India's former batsman Lalchand Rajput replaced Pakistan's Inzamam-ul-Haq as their national team coach. (AFP)

Cricket: Afghanistan cancels Pakistan games after Kabul attack

In a remote northern Pakistani valley surrounded by giant ice-capped peaks, villagers gather to watch a game of Buzkashi, an ancient equestrian sport once seen as a key test of virility that is now struggling for survival.

Baksh Dil Khan, a retired schoolteacher is saddling his horse as his wife sprinkles a pinch of flour over the animal for good luck, worried that the snowfall that blankets the Chapursan Valley will make the day&#39;s match too treacherous.&nbsp;

The burly, moustached 52-year-old is one of the sports&#39; last two dozen players in this region of roughly 2000 people, which shares a border with Afghanistan to the east and the north.

A black goat is led out to the middle of the grounds for the players to inspect. Some pick it up before nodding their approval.&nbsp;

It is taken away, later returning as a headless, disemboweled carcass and is placed in a circle in the centre of the field.

This body is the prize the horseman will jostle over in the game, made up of a series of rounds in which they aim to throw it back into the circle.&nbsp;

Goals are met with enthusiastic shouts of &#39;Halal&#39; from the crowd, a sign they believe it was legitimately scored.

Buzkashi is a way for players to show off their equestrian skills and manliness, but there are also prizes and cash to secure.&nbsp;

Baksh has won PKR 4,000 ($40), three packs of cigarettes and a cellphone.&nbsp;

&quot;I almost broke my neck for these three packs of cigarettes and I am not even a smoker,&quot; he jokes -- he fell twice from his horse during the game.&nbsp;

Unlike in neighbouring Afghanistan or Central Asia where the sport remains vibrant, Baksh fears the tradition will die out in Pakistan.

&quot;It is dying down and there are only half a dozen old players left, the new generation is not taking much interest in the game and we have only around a dozen young players,&quot; he explains.

Now even finding enough horses can be a challenge as many locals have sold their steeds to buy modern comforts, says 38-year-old Taj Muhammad.

&quot;Buzkashi will be just an event of the past, a story for our children,&quot; he muses.

For Aziz Ali Dad, a cultural anthropologist, the decline of the bloodsport is a sign of Pakistan&#39;s diminishing cultural ties with Central Asia, where the game originated.

In Hunza, it has long been a mainstay of the Wakhi people, who are also found in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Xinjiang in China.

But Aziz says the lack of contact between them today means Buzkashi is &quot;on the verge of extinction in Pakistan.&quot;

Defiant, Baksh vows to ride on, even if others give up.

He insists: &quot;I will continue to play even if I am the last player, the game should at least survive till my death.&quot;

(AFP)

An ancient equestrian sport once seen as a key test of virility is now struggling for survival

In a remote northern Pakistani valley surrounded by giant ice-capped peaks, villagers gather to watch a game of Buzkashi, an ancient equestrian sport once seen as a key test of virility that is now struggling for survival. Baksh Dil Khan, a retired schoolteacher is saddling his horse as his wife sprinkles a pinch of flour over the animal for good luck, worried that the snowfall that blankets the Chapursan Valley will make the day's match too treacherous. The burly, moustached 52-year-old is one of the sports' last two dozen players in this region of roughly 2000 people, which shares a border with Afghanistan to the east and the north. A black goat is led out to the middle of the grounds for the players to inspect. Some pick it up before nodding their approval. It is taken away, later returning as a headless, disemboweled carcass and is placed in a circle in the centre of the field. This body is the prize the horseman will jostle over in the game, made up of a series of rounds in which they aim to throw it back into the circle. Goals are met with enthusiastic shouts of 'Halal' from the crowd, a sign they believe it was legitimately scored. Buzkashi is a way for players to show off their equestrian skills and manliness, but there are also prizes and cash to secure. Baksh has won PKR 4,000 ($40), three packs of cigarettes and a cellphone. "I almost broke my neck for these three packs of cigarettes and I am not even a smoker," he jokes -- he fell twice from his horse during the game. Unlike in neighbouring Afghanistan or Central Asia where the sport remains vibrant, Baksh fears the tradition will die out in Pakistan. "It is dying down and there are only half a dozen old players left, the new generation is not taking much interest in the game and we have only around a dozen young players," he explains. Now even finding enough horses can be a challenge as many locals have sold their steeds to buy modern comforts, says 38-year-old Taj Muhammad. "Buzkashi will be just an event of the past, a story for our children," he muses. For Aziz Ali Dad, a cultural anthropologist, the decline of the bloodsport is a sign of Pakistan's diminishing cultural ties with Central Asia, where the game originated. In Hunza, it has long been a mainstay of the Wakhi people, who are also found in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Xinjiang in China. But Aziz says the lack of contact between them today means Buzkashi is "on the verge of extinction in Pakistan." Defiant, Baksh vows to ride on, even if others give up. He insists: "I will continue to play even if I am the last player, the game should at least survive till my death." (AFP)

The dying sport of Buzkashi in Pakistan

The head of US intelligence agencies offered a pessimistic assessment Thursday of the security situation in Afghanistan, where the US government is planning to send more troops to combat resurgent Islamic extremists.

&quot;The political and security situation in Afghanistan will also almost certainly deteriorate through 2018, even with a modest increase in the military assistance by the US and its partners,&quot; Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

&quot;Afghanistan will struggle to curb its dependence on external support until it contains the insurgency or reaches a peace agreement with the Taliban,&quot; Coats told lawmakers in&nbsp;presenting an annual assessment of threats to US national security.

US-led forces have been fighting in Afghanistan for almost 16 years, making it America&#39;s longest war, yet the situation there remains a stalemate.

General Vincent Stewart, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said if the situation was not addressed, the US-led alliance risked losing the fragile gains it had made during the protracted conflict.

&quot;Unless we change something... the situation will continue to deteriorate and we&#39;ll lose all the gains that we&#39;ve invested in over the last several years,&quot; he said.

That new beefing-up of efforts would include sending US and NATO advisers at brigade and battalion level to help Afghan commanders coordinate troop movements with artillery, intelligence or close air support, he said.

The Taliban, which first emerged in the mid-1990s in southern Afghanistan, managed to conquer most of the country before its 2001 ouster, with the help of a range of foreign jihadists, including Pakistanis, Saudis and Chechens.

But it has been on the rebound, Coates said, and continues to gain strength.

&quot;The Taliban is likely to continue to make gains, especially in rural areas,&quot; said the US spy chief, adding that efforts to bolster local military have been less fruitful than hoped.

&quot;Afghan security forces&#39; performance will probably worsen due to a combination of Taliban operations, combat casualties, desertions, poor logistics support, weak leadership,&quot; he said.&nbsp;

&quot;Afghanistan will struggle to curb its dependence on external support until it contains the insurgency or reaches a peace agreement with the Taliban.&quot;

America has about 8,400 troops in Afghanistan. Most belong to a 13,300-strong NATO mission to train and advise Afghan partner forces fighting the Taliban.

Last month, the United States dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever deployed in combat in Afghanistan, targeting an Islamic State group complex.

(AFP)

US-led forces have been fighting in Afghanistan for almost 16 years, making it America's longest war, yet the situation there remains a stalemate.

The head of US intelligence agencies offered a pessimistic assessment Thursday of the security situation in Afghanistan, where the US government is planning to send more troops to combat resurgent Islamic extremists. "The political and security situation in Afghanistan will also almost certainly deteriorate through 2018, even with a modest increase in the military assistance by the US and its partners," Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Afghanistan will struggle to curb its dependence on external support until it contains the insurgency or reaches a peace agreement with the Taliban," Coats told lawmakers in presenting an annual assessment of threats to US national security. US-led forces have been fighting in Afghanistan for almost 16 years, making it America's longest war, yet the situation there remains a stalemate. General Vincent Stewart, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said if the situation was not addressed, the US-led alliance risked losing the fragile gains it had made during the protracted conflict. "Unless we change something... the situation will continue to deteriorate and we'll lose all the gains that we've invested in over the last several years," he said. That new beefing-up of efforts would include sending US and NATO advisers at brigade and battalion level to help Afghan commanders coordinate troop movements with artillery, intelligence or close air support, he said. The Taliban, which first emerged in the mid-1990s in southern Afghanistan, managed to conquer most of the country before its 2001 ouster, with the help of a range of foreign jihadists, including Pakistanis, Saudis and Chechens. But it has been on the rebound, Coates said, and continues to gain strength. "The Taliban is likely to continue to make gains, especially in rural areas," said the US spy chief, adding that efforts to bolster local military have been less fruitful than hoped. "Afghan security forces' performance will probably worsen due to a combination of Taliban operations, combat casualties, desertions, poor logistics support, weak leadership," he said. "Afghanistan will struggle to curb its dependence on external support until it contains the insurgency or reaches a peace agreement with the Taliban." America has about 8,400 troops in Afghanistan. Most belong to a 13,300-strong NATO mission to train and advise Afghan partner forces fighting the Taliban. Last month, the United States dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever deployed in combat in Afghanistan, targeting an Islamic State group complex. (AFP)

Security situation in Afghanistan likely to deteriorate: US intelligence chief

Afghans were dealt a blast from the past one morning late last week: Newspapers front paged a photograph of President Ashraf Ghani and his Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah flanking the man widely reviled as the Butcher of Kabul, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Also in the picture was former president Hamid Karzai.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Hekmatyar&#39;s return to Kabul after 20 years of exile could be described as nothing less than triumphant. He rolled into the city in a convoy of vehicles with his armed Hezb-I-Islami fighters in tow. Apparently, his murderous shelling of Kabul in the 1990s civil war was no longer an issue, which suggests that the Afghan pot is churning again with uncertain consequences for India. But more on that later. Let&#39;s look at some other developments.&nbsp;

This week the Pentagon will shoot off a set of recommendations on Afghanistan to President Trump: The buzz in the US media is about the military proposing to send at least 5000 more troops to that country to add to the 8,400 already there. The troops will be largely &quot;trainers&quot; for the Afghan military. &nbsp;

It doesn&#39;t take a genius to figure out that when the US was not able to sort out the Taliban with 100,000 troops, it cannot do so with 13,500. At the same time, Trump apparently has given his &nbsp;military brass full freedom on Afghanistan. The only caveat is the US should not end up looking defeated.&nbsp;

This comment from Gen. Raymond Thomas of the US Special Operations Command provides insights into the army&#39;s thinking. &nbsp;He said the critical factor in Afghanistan was the US commitment to &ldquo;a sound enduring state&rdquo; which he said, was &ldquo;not described effectively&rdquo; in the past. &ldquo;I think our new strategy is going to establish that definition.&rdquo; &nbsp;

Sameer Lalwani and Travis Wheeler of the Stimson Center, who write&nbsp;in the online magazine The Wire, said the US is hoping to achieve &quot;strategic effects&quot; in Afghanistan, meaning, &quot;the US could use force not simply to reverse battlefield gains by the Taliban but instead could pursue a lasting political settlement.&quot;&nbsp;

That point had been underscored by Richard Olson, former US Special Representative for AfPak, in an op-ed piece in the New York Times where he suggested that a political settlement might be possible allowing (and this is important) for reconciliation and Taliban entrance into the Afghan state!&nbsp;

Finally we have it: The US maybe preparing to do what was until now considered unthinkable, shake hands with the Taliban. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The US maybe preparing to do what was until now considered unthinkable, shake hands with the Taliban.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The US maybe preparing to do what was until now considered unthinkable, shake hands with the Taliban." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

The pundits would say Washington is rather belatedly waking up to &nbsp;the realities of its 17 year Afghan adventure. The Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction recently reported to the US Congress, that Taliban shadow governments now operate in virtually every province and control some of them, like Helmand. Government centres throughout the country are under constant pressure from Taliban insurgents. &nbsp;Violence throughout 2016 and in the first quarter of this year, have reached their highest level since 2007. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Afghanistan&#39;s neighbours appear to have woken up to this much earlier. Russia and China have been talking to the Taliban, apparently seeing them as less of a threat than the Islamic State. This is happening when the Islamic State&#39;s presence in eastern Afghanistan is at a nascent stage, there is no great territory it controls and its rank and file appear to be disgruntled elements from other insurgent factions including the Taliban. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Even Shia Iran appears to have come on board to support the Sunni Taliban. There are reports of Taliban leaders being sighted in Kerman, Yazd and Mashad in Iran. Also that the Taliban shura has been allowed to operate since 2012 from Zahedan in south-east Iran bordering Afghanistan. The Afghan government says Taliban leaders cross over into Iran with valid visas on their passports. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, incidentally, is reported to have been living in Iran for the last seven years despite his anti-Shia proclivites. &nbsp;&nbsp;

South Asia writer Ramtanu Maitra of the Executive Intelligence Review, underscores a crucial point, that Saudi financial largesse for the Taliban maybe drying up, the money now shifting to support the Islamic State. &nbsp;Reports of IS cadres seeking to expand their influence in the Afghan provinces of Zabul, Wardak and Ghazni have been persistent. Maitra points to Russian reports that the IS is infiltrating into Helmand with an eye on controlling the heroin trafficking network there. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Afghanistan&#39;s neighbours, it seems, see the Taliban as the lesser of the two evils: Although Islamist and conservative, it is an Afghan movement. The Taliban in turn, may find it convenient to moderate its policies in order to draw the support of neighbours as it seeks to ward off the challenge of the Islamic State.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Taliban in turn, may find it convenient to moderate its policies in order to draw the support of neighbours as it seeks to ward off the challenge of the Islamic State.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Taliban in turn, may find it convenient to moderate its policies in order to draw the support of neighbours as it seeks to ward off the challenge of the Islamic State.?" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

Where does this leave India? Publicly, India&#39;s policy is no truck with the Taliban. The group is seen in India as Pakistan&#39;s child, an Islamist &nbsp;terror outfit bent on fomenting discord and violence across the region. But does that imply no contact at all with the group? &nbsp;Indian diplomats have indicated privately in the past that the Taliban was not known to target India funded development projects. In 2010 Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said the movement was not in direct conflict with India and wanted normal relations. &nbsp;This even while claiming responsibility for the attack on a Kabul hotel in Feb 2010 in which seven Indians were killed. &nbsp;

In 2013, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef was in Goa to attend the litfest. Reports at that time said Indian intelligence agencies insisted that he get a visa. Zaeef was picked up by the Pakistanis as the US moved into Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. He spent time in Guantanamo Bay and the book he wrote after his release is scathing in its references to Islamabad. India is hardly mentioned. Ambassador Zaeef told me in an interview in Kabul some years ago that India did wrong by backing the Soviet occupation of his country and supporting the late President Najibullah. But he also acknowledged India never sent troops to Afghanistan. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Lalwani and Wheeler make the point that an Afghan settlement involving the Taliban could in the long term help India. Currently, Washington&#39;s South Asia focus is driven largely by AfPak with Islamabad exercising considerable leverage in the relationship. &nbsp;

This stems partly from Washington&#39;s reliance on Pakistan to ensure smooth flow of supplies to its forces in Afghanistan. Also partly because the Pakistan-US partnership is an old one, dating back to the 1950s; in the &nbsp;Pentagon and State Department there are &quot;Pakistan hands&quot;; there are individual and institutional relationships; most important the Pakistani military and its intelligence agencies provide valuable support to the US even today. &nbsp;Such ties provide the balance when the outcry against Pakistani involvement and connivance with terror groups gets louder.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Ambassador Zaeef told me in an interview in Kabul some years ago that India did wrong by backing the Soviet occupation of his country and supporting the late President Najibullah.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Ambassador Zaeef told me in an interview in Kabul some years ago that India did wrong by backing the Soviet occupation of his country and supporting the late President Najibullah." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

Lalwani and Wheeler believe this interdependence will diminish considerably after an Afghan settlement no longer requires the presence of US forces. The US may then be more inclined to crack down on Pakistan-backed terror groups, including those directed against India.&nbsp;

There is also the point that with its military capacities being significantly augmented, India may have little to fear from the Taliban. If the group does provide sanctuaries and safe haven to terror groups, India can easily target them. Which brings me back to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the churning of the Afghan pot. His anti-India inclinations are well known but sitting in Kabul with a stake in the power structure could transform old attitudes. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The Taliban, for all its faults, remains an Afghan movement. It is also, going by various reports, splintered and therefore difficult for Pakistan to control. It probably explains Pakistan&#39;s support for other groups, including the Haqqani network, Al-Qaeda (apparently Pakistan is hiding its chief Ayman Zawahiri in Karachi), besides covertly encouraging the rise of the Islamic State in Afghanistan. India needs to play its cards deftly in this new phase of the Afghan Great Game. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

(WION)

With the return of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Afghan pot is churning again with uncertain consequences for India.

Afghans were dealt a blast from the past one morning late last week: Newspapers front paged a photograph of President Ashraf Ghani and his Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah flanking the man widely reviled as the Butcher of Kabul, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Also in the picture was former president Hamid Karzai. Hekmatyar's return to Kabul after 20 years of exile could be described as nothing less than triumphant. He rolled into the city in a convoy of vehicles with his armed Hezb-I-Islami fighters in tow. Apparently, his murderous shelling of Kabul in the 1990s civil war was no longer an issue, which suggests that the Afghan pot is churning again with uncertain consequences for India. But more on that later. Let's look at some other developments. This week the Pentagon will shoot off a set of recommendations on Afghanistan to President Trump: The buzz in the US media is about the military proposing to send at least 5000 more troops to that country to add to the 8,400 already there. The troops will be largely "trainers" for the Afghan military. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when the US was not able to sort out the Taliban with 100,000 troops, it cannot do so with 13,500. At the same time, Trump apparently has given his military brass full freedom on Afghanistan. The only caveat is the US should not end up looking defeated. This comment from Gen. Raymond Thomas of the US Special Operations Command provides insights into the army's thinking. He said the critical factor in Afghanistan was the US commitment to “a sound enduring state” which he said, was “not described effectively” in the past. “I think our new strategy is going to establish that definition.” Sameer Lalwani and Travis Wheeler of the Stimson Center, who write in the online magazine The Wire, said the US is hoping to achieve "strategic effects" in Afghanistan, meaning, "the US could use force not simply to reverse battlefield gains by the Taliban but instead could pursue a lasting political settlement." That point had been underscored by Richard Olson, former US Special Representative for AfPak, in an op-ed piece in the New York Times where he suggested that a political settlement might be possible allowing (and this is important) for reconciliation and Taliban entrance into the Afghan state! Finally we have it: The US maybe preparing to do what was until now considered unthinkable, shake hands with the Taliban. The US maybe preparing to do what was until now considered unthinkable, shake hands with the Taliban. × The pundits would say Washington is rather belatedly waking up to the realities of its 17 year Afghan adventure. The Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction recently reported to the US Congress, that Taliban shadow governments now operate in virtually every province and control some of them, like Helmand. Government centres throughout the country are under constant pressure from Taliban insurgents. Violence throughout 2016 and in the first quarter of this year, have reached their highest level since 2007. Afghanistan's neighbours appear to have woken up to this much earlier. Russia and China have been talking to the Taliban, apparently seeing them as less of a threat than the Islamic State. This is happening when the Islamic State's presence in eastern Afghanistan is at a nascent stage, there is no great territory it controls and its rank and file appear to be disgruntled elements from other insurgent factions including the Taliban. Even Shia Iran appears to have come on board to support the Sunni Taliban. There are reports of Taliban leaders being sighted in Kerman, Yazd and Mashad in Iran. Also that the Taliban shura has been allowed to operate since 2012 from Zahedan in south-east Iran bordering Afghanistan. The Afghan government says Taliban leaders cross over into Iran with valid visas on their passports. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, incidentally, is reported to have been living in Iran for the last seven years despite his anti-Shia proclivites. South Asia writer Ramtanu Maitra of the Executive Intelligence Review, underscores a crucial point, that Saudi financial largesse for the Taliban maybe drying up, the money now shifting to support the Islamic State. Reports of IS cadres seeking to expand their influence in the Afghan provinces of Zabul, Wardak and Ghazni have been persistent. Maitra points to Russian reports that the IS is infiltrating into Helmand with an eye on controlling the heroin trafficking network there. Afghanistan's neighbours, it seems, see the Taliban as the lesser of the two evils: Although Islamist and conservative, it is an Afghan movement. The Taliban in turn, may find it convenient to moderate its policies in order to draw the support of neighbours as it seeks to ward off the challenge of the Islamic State. The Taliban in turn, may find it convenient to moderate its policies in order to draw the support of neighbours as it seeks to ward off the challenge of the Islamic State. × Where does this leave India? Publicly, India's policy is no truck with the Taliban. The group is seen in India as Pakistan's child, an Islamist terror outfit bent on fomenting discord and violence across the region. But does that imply no contact at all with the group? Indian diplomats have indicated privately in the past that the Taliban was not known to target India funded development projects. In 2010 Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said the movement was not in direct conflict with India and wanted normal relations. This even while claiming responsibility for the attack on a Kabul hotel in Feb 2010 in which seven Indians were killed. In 2013, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef was in Goa to attend the litfest. Reports at that time said Indian intelligence agencies insisted that he get a visa. Zaeef was picked up by the Pakistanis as the US moved into Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. He spent time in Guantanamo Bay and the book he wrote after his release is scathing in its references to Islamabad. India is hardly mentioned. Ambassador Zaeef told me in an interview in Kabul some years ago that India did wrong by backing the Soviet occupation of his country and supporting the late President Najibullah. But he also acknowledged India never sent troops to Afghanistan. Lalwani and Wheeler make the point that an Afghan settlement involving the Taliban could in the long term help India. Currently, Washington's South Asia focus is driven largely by AfPak with Islamabad exercising considerable leverage in the relationship. This stems partly from Washington's reliance on Pakistan to ensure smooth flow of supplies to its forces in Afghanistan. Also partly because the Pakistan-US partnership is an old one, dating back to the 1950s; in the Pentagon and State Department there are "Pakistan hands"; there are individual and institutional relationships; most important the Pakistani military and its intelligence agencies provide valuable support to the US even today. Such ties provide the balance when the outcry against Pakistani involvement and connivance with terror groups gets louder. Ambassador Zaeef told me in an interview in Kabul some years ago that India did wrong by backing the Soviet occupation of his country and supporting the late President Najibullah. × Lalwani and Wheeler believe this interdependence will diminish considerably after an Afghan settlement no longer requires the presence of US forces. The US may then be more inclined to crack down on Pakistan-backed terror groups, including those directed against India. There is also the point that with its military capacities being significantly augmented, India may have little to fear from the Taliban. If the group does provide sanctuaries and safe haven to terror groups, India can easily target them. Which brings me back to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the churning of the Afghan pot. His anti-India inclinations are well known but sitting in Kabul with a stake in the power structure could transform old attitudes. The Taliban, for all its faults, remains an Afghan movement. It is also, going by various reports, splintered and therefore difficult for Pakistan to control. It probably explains Pakistan's support for other groups, including the Haqqani network, Al-Qaeda (apparently Pakistan is hiding its chief Ayman Zawahiri in Karachi), besides covertly encouraging the rise of the Islamic State in Afghanistan. India needs to play its cards deftly in this new phase of the Afghan Great Game. (WION)

Afghan Great Game changes with the return of 'Butcher of Kabul'

Pakistan and Afghanistan plan on using Google Maps to help resolve a border dispute that led to deadly clashes last week, a senior Pakistani security source said Monday.

At least eight civilians were killed on both sides in fighting that began when a Pakistani census team accompanied by soldiers visited disputed villages along the southern border on Friday.

Pakistan inherited its 2,400-kilometre (1,500-mile) border with its western neighbour when it gained independence from the British Empire in 1947, but Afghanistan has never formally recognised the frontier.

And while official Afghan maps reflect the so-called &#39;Durand Line&#39;, many nationalists believe the true border of their country ends at the River Indus that runs through Pakistan and gave India its name.

A senior Pakistani security source in Islamabad who requested anonymity said: &quot;Officials from the geological survey departments of the two countries will conduct a survey, and they will also make use of Google Maps.&quot;

A second official in Quetta confirmed the sides had agreed to a survey.

Internet firm Google complies with local laws in certain countries that compel it to show borders in line with national demands -- for instance, its Indian site shows the entirety of disputed Kashmir as being controlled by India.

In Pakistan, however, the site shows the internationally-recognised de facto border, the Line of Control, marked with a dotted line to denote it is disputed.&nbsp;

Attempts by Pakistan to harden the traditionally soft border with Afghanistan through trenching and fencing that began in 2016 have been met with hostility by Kabul.

Ethnic Pashtuns living in the region have traditionally paid it little heed, with villages straddling the frontier that have mosques and houses with one door in Pakistan and another in Afghanistan.

Pakistani forces on Sunday elevated their rhetoric when they said they had also killed &quot;more than 50 soldiers&quot; in last week`s border clashes -- a claim quickly rejected by Kabul, which said it lost two troops.

(AFP)

The dispute led to deadly clashes last week

Pakistan and Afghanistan plan on using Google Maps to help resolve a border dispute that led to deadly clashes last week, a senior Pakistani security source said Monday. At least eight civilians were killed on both sides in fighting that began when a Pakistani census team accompanied by soldiers visited disputed villages along the southern border on Friday. Pakistan inherited its 2,400-kilometre (1,500-mile) border with its western neighbour when it gained independence from the British Empire in 1947, but Afghanistan has never formally recognised the frontier. And while official Afghan maps reflect the so-called 'Durand Line', many nationalists believe the true border of their country ends at the River Indus that runs through Pakistan and gave India its name. A senior Pakistani security source in Islamabad who requested anonymity said: "Officials from the geological survey departments of the two countries will conduct a survey, and they will also make use of Google Maps." A second official in Quetta confirmed the sides had agreed to a survey. Internet firm Google complies with local laws in certain countries that compel it to show borders in line with national demands -- for instance, its Indian site shows the entirety of disputed Kashmir as being controlled by India. In Pakistan, however, the site shows the internationally-recognised de facto border, the Line of Control, marked with a dotted line to denote it is disputed. Attempts by Pakistan to harden the traditionally soft border with Afghanistan through trenching and fencing that began in 2016 have been met with hostility by Kabul. Ethnic Pashtuns living in the region have traditionally paid it little heed, with villages straddling the frontier that have mosques and houses with one door in Pakistan and another in Afghanistan. Pakistani forces on Sunday elevated their rhetoric when they said they had also killed "more than 50 soldiers" in last week`s border clashes -- a claim quickly rejected by Kabul, which said it lost two troops. (AFP)

How will Afghanistan, Pak resolve border dispute? Google Maps

Islamic State claimed responsibility on Wednesday for an attack on an armoured convoy used by NATO that killed eight people in the Afghan capital Kabul.

It said in a statement on its Amaq news agency that a suicide bomber detonated an explosives-rigged car as the convoy passed an area near the U.S. embassy, killing eight American soldiers.

Public health officials in Kabul said the eight dead were civilians and that at least 28 people were wounded in the blast that took place during the morning rush hour in a busy part of the city. Three U.S. service members were among the wounded.

There was no immediate word on whether any foreign troops had been hurt in the attack, which hit a group of armoured personnel carriers designed to withstand large blasts.

However the blast, which security officials at the scene said was a suicide attack, also destroyed&nbsp;or badly damaged a number of civilian vehicles nearby.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/capture-20170503040121.JPG" />
<div class="media-description">
Explosion reported in PD9 Massoud Square in Kabul city. (Twitter)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/2017-05-03t064723z_1_lynxmped4209t_rtroptp_3_afghanistan-blast-20170503074851.JPG" />
<div class="media-description">
Afghan police and municipal workers clear debris from the site of a suicide bomb attack in Kabul. (Reuters)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/2017-05-03t064723z_1_lynxmped4209v_rtroptp_3_afghanistan-blast-20170503075209.JPG" />
<div class="media-description">
Men carry an injured man inside a hospital after the suicide attack in Kabul. (Reuters)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The attack follows a threat by the Taliban to target foreign forces in the spring offensive that it launched last week.

Witnesses said traces of blood and clothing could be seen on the ground at the blast site. Kabul television stations earlier reported that at least three people had been killed.

The heavily armoured MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles that coalition forces use to travel in Kabul appeared to have suffered only relatively minor external damage, witnesses said.

There was no immediate comment from the Resolute Support mission in the capital.

(Reuters)

Islamic State claimed responsibility on Wednesday for an attack on an armoured convoy used by NATO that killed eight people in the Afghan capital Kabul. It said in a statement on its Amaq news agency that a suicide bomber detonated an explosives-rigged car as the convoy passed an area near the U.S. embassy, killing eight American soldiers. Public health officials in Kabul said the eight dead were civilians and that at least 28 people were wounded in the blast that took place during the morning rush hour in a busy part of the city. Three U.S. service members were among the wounded. There was no immediate word on whether any foreign troops had been hurt in the attack, which hit a group of armoured personnel carriers designed to withstand large blasts. However the blast, which security officials at the scene said was a suicide attack, also destroyed or badly damaged a number of civilian vehicles nearby. Explosion reported in PD9 Massoud Square in Kabul city. (Twitter) × Afghan police and municipal workers clear debris from the site of a suicide bomb attack in Kabul. (Reuters) × Men carry an injured man inside a hospital after the suicide attack in Kabul. (Reuters) × The attack follows a threat by the Taliban to target foreign forces in the spring offensive that it launched last week. Witnesses said traces of blood and clothing could be seen on the ground at the blast site. Kabul television stations earlier reported that at least three people had been killed. The heavily armoured MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles that coalition forces use to travel in Kabul appeared to have suffered only relatively minor external damage, witnesses said. There was no immediate comment from the Resolute Support mission in the capital. (Reuters)

Islamic State claims responsibility for blast in Afghan capital that killed 8

The death toll among Afghan security forces has remained &quot;shockingly high&quot; this year, a United States-based watchdog said, as the US ponders about its future course of action in the war-stricken country.

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the watchdog, said 807 security personnel died and 1,328 wounded between January 1 and February 24.

The number is especially alarming because the level of violence subsides during the harsh winter months. Traditionally, the Taliban and other insurgency groups renew their attacks as spring approaches.

&quot;Afghanistan remains in the grip of a deadly war,&quot; the SIGAR report said.

&quot;Casualties suffered by the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) in the fight against the Taliban and other insurgents continue to be shockingly high,&quot; said SIGAR, which was set up to review the effectiveness of US support programmes.

The data were obtained from the US&nbsp;military and were based on operational reporting and may differ from official statistics provided by the Afghan government and ministries.

There has been little let-up in violence targeting Afghan forces since the period covered in the report.

On April 21 an attack by militants on an army base in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif killed 135 soldiers, according to official figures, and twice that number by other accounts.

It is important to note that the Afghan security forces took over security operations from NATO in 2015.

In a report released in February, SIGAR said at least 6,785 Afghan soldiers and police had been killed in the first 10 months of 2016. Civilian casualties last year totalled 3,498 killed and 7,920 wounded, making it the deadliest year on record for civilians.

From January to March this year, 715 civilians were killed and 1,466 wounded.

The figures come as the US&nbsp;weighs its future strategy for Afghanistan, where it has already spent more than $115 billion in reconstruction efforts.

On the upside, the Afghan security forces have increased their sphere of influence in the country.

They now control 59.7 per cent of the country, up from 57.2 per cent,&nbsp;Al Jazeera reported.

(WION with inputs from Reuters)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

A US watchdog said 807 security personnel died and 1,328 wounded between January 1 and February 24

The death toll among Afghan security forces has remained "shockingly high" this year, a United States-based watchdog said, as the US ponders about its future course of action in the war-stricken country. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the watchdog, said 807 security personnel died and 1,328 wounded between January 1 and February 24. The number is especially alarming because the level of violence subsides during the harsh winter months. Traditionally, the Taliban and other insurgency groups renew their attacks as spring approaches. "Afghanistan remains in the grip of a deadly war," the SIGAR report said. "Casualties suffered by the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) in the fight against the Taliban and other insurgents continue to be shockingly high," said SIGAR, which was set up to review the effectiveness of US support programmes. The data were obtained from the US military and were based on operational reporting and may differ from official statistics provided by the Afghan government and ministries. There has been little let-up in violence targeting Afghan forces since the period covered in the report. On April 21 an attack by militants on an army base in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif killed 135 soldiers, according to official figures, and twice that number by other accounts. It is important to note that the Afghan security forces took over security operations from NATO in 2015. In a report released in February, SIGAR said at least 6,785 Afghan soldiers and police had been killed in the first 10 months of 2016. Civilian casualties last year totalled 3,498 killed and 7,920 wounded, making it the deadliest year on record for civilians. From January to March this year, 715 civilians were killed and 1,466 wounded. The figures come as the US weighs its future strategy for Afghanistan, where it has already spent more than $115 billion in reconstruction efforts. On the upside, the Afghan security forces have increased their sphere of influence in the country. They now control 59.7 per cent of the country, up from 57.2 per cent, Al Jazeera reported. (WION with inputs from Reuters)

Afghan security forces' death toll 'shockingly high' this year: Report

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani accepted the resignations of his defence minister and army chief of staff on Monday, after more than 140 soldiers were killed last week in the deadliest ever Taliban attack on a military base, the president`s office said.

&quot;Defence Minister Abdullah Habibi and Army Chief of Staff Qadam Shah Shahim stepped down with immediate effect,&quot; the presidential palace announced in a post on its Twitter account.

Shah Hussain Murtazawi, acting spokesman for Ghani, told Reuters the resignations were because of Friday`s attack on a major army base in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif.

In a serious security failure, as many as 10 Taliban fighters, dressed in Afghan army uniforms and driving military vehicles, made their way onto the base and opened fire on soldiers and new recruits eating a meal and leaving a mosque after Friday prayers, according to officials.

Multiple Afghan officials said the final death toll was likely to be even higher.

The attackers used rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns, and suicide vests, they said.

Ghani declared Sunday a day of mourning, ordering flags to be flown at half-staff.

On Monday, a small group of demonstrators gathered outside the presidential palace in Kabul to demand the resignation of top Afghan defence officials over the attack.

The attack, and resulting military leadership shake-up, come as the Afghan army prepares for what is expected to be a year of hard fighting against Taliban militants, who now control or contest more than 40 per cent of the country.

Nearly 9,000 US&nbsp;troops remain in Afghanistan, in addition to thousands of international coalition forces.

The administration of new US&nbsp;President Donald Trump is considering whether to make changes to the US&nbsp;mission training and advising Afghan forces, and conducting raids against militant groups such as Islamic State.

The German military, which has led much of the advising effort in northern Afghanistan, said in the wake of the attack it would continue to work with the Afghans.

(Reuters)

&nbsp;

The resignations come?as the army prepares for a year of hard fighting against the Taliban which now controls or contests more than 40 per cent of the country

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani accepted the resignations of his defence minister and army chief of staff on Monday, after more than 140 soldiers were killed last week in the deadliest ever Taliban attack on a military base, the president`s office said. "Defence Minister Abdullah Habibi and Army Chief of Staff Qadam Shah Shahim stepped down with immediate effect," the presidential palace announced in a post on its Twitter account. Shah Hussain Murtazawi, acting spokesman for Ghani, told Reuters the resignations were because of Friday`s attack on a major army base in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif. In a serious security failure, as many as 10 Taliban fighters, dressed in Afghan army uniforms and driving military vehicles, made their way onto the base and opened fire on soldiers and new recruits eating a meal and leaving a mosque after Friday prayers, according to officials. Multiple Afghan officials said the final death toll was likely to be even higher. The attackers used rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns, and suicide vests, they said. Ghani declared Sunday a day of mourning, ordering flags to be flown at half-staff. On Monday, a small group of demonstrators gathered outside the presidential palace in Kabul to demand the resignation of top Afghan defence officials over the attack. The attack, and resulting military leadership shake-up, come as the Afghan army prepares for what is expected to be a year of hard fighting against Taliban militants, who now control or contest more than 40 per cent of the country. Nearly 9,000 US troops remain in Afghanistan, in addition to thousands of international coalition forces. The administration of new US President Donald Trump is considering whether to make changes to the US mission training and advising Afghan forces, and conducting raids against militant groups such as Islamic State. The German military, which has led much of the advising effort in northern Afghanistan, said in the wake of the attack it would continue to work with the Afghans. (Reuters)

Afghan defence minister, Army chief resign over Taliban attack on military base

Egypt&#39;s Copts, targets of an apparent church bombing north of Cairo on Sunday, are the Middle East&#39;s largest Christian minority and one of the oldest.

Making up about 10 percent of Egypt&#39;s population of 90 million, the Coptic Orthodox form the largest Christian denomination in the Muslim-majority country.

Here is a recap of their history, their status today and recent attacks against them.

&#39;Dawn of Christianity&#39;&nbsp;

The Copts trace their history to the dawn of Christianity, when Egypt was integrated into the Roman and later the Byzantine empire.

The word &quot;Copt&quot; comes from the same root as the word for &quot;Egyptian&quot; in ancient Greek.

The community&#39;s decline started with the Arab invasions of the 7th century and the progressive Islamisation of the country, which today is largely Sunni Muslim.

Several churches and monasteries in Egypt are built on sites Copts believe were visited by the Holy Family.

The Bible says Joseph, Mary and Jesus sought refuge in Egypt after Christ&#39;s birth to escape a massacre of newborns ordered by King Harod.

Copts today&nbsp;

Copts, represented in all social classes, are present across the whole country, with the strongest concentration in central and southern Egypt.

Most adhere to the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, headed since 2012 by Pope Tawadros II. A minority is divided between Coptic Catholics and various Coptic Protestant branches.

Tawadros, who succeeded pope Shenuda III, was chosen by a blindfolded altar boy picking his name from a chalice, according to tradition.

The Catholic Copts, who form part of the Church&#39;s eastern rite, have been headed by patriarch Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak since 2013.

The Vatican says some 165,000 Catholic Copts lived in Egypt in 2010.

Poorly represented in government, Copts complain that they are sidelined from many posts in the justice system, universities and the police.

Authorities often refuse to issue building permits for churches, arguing it would disturb the peace with their Muslim neighbours.

Deadly violence&nbsp;

Egypt&#39;s Copts have been the target of several deadly attacks since the 2011 uprising that toppled longtime president Hosni Mubarak.

On January 1, 2011, more than 20 people died in the unclaimed bombing of a Coptic church in Egypt&#39;s second city, Alexandria.

In March the same year, 13 people were killed in clashes between Muslims and Copts in Cairo&#39;s working class neighbourhood of Moqattam, where around 1,000 Christians had gathered to protest over the torching of a church.

In May 2011, clashes between Muslims and Copts left 15 dead in the Cairo neighbourhood of Imbaba, where two churches were attacked.

That October, almost 30 people -- mostly Coptic Christians -- were killed after the army charged at a protest in Cairo to denounce the torching of a church in southern Egypt.

The 2013 ouster of Mubarak&#39;s elected Islamist successor Mohamed Morsi after just one year in power sparked further attacks against Christians.

Pro-Morsi Islamists accused the Christian community of supporting his overthrow.

They pointed to the appearance of Tawadros alongside President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on television in July 2013 as the then army chief, also surrounded by Muslim and opposition figures, announced Morsi&#39;s removal.

The next month, security forces used deadly force to break up two pro-Morsi protest camps in Cairo.&nbsp;

The following two weeks saw attacks against more than 40 churches across the country, according to Human Rights Watch.

Amnesty International later said more than 200 Christian-owned properties were attacked and 43 churches seriously damaged, with at least four people killed.

In December last year, a suicide bombing claimed by the Islamic State group killed 29 worshippers during a Sunday mass in Cairo.&nbsp;

A spate of deadly jihadist-linked attacks in Egypt&#39;s restive Sinai Peninsula in February prompted some Coptic families to flee their homes.

About 250 Christians took refuge in the Suez Canal city of Ismailiya after IS released a video calling for attacks against the minority.

Pope Francis is set to visit Cairo late this month for talks with the grand imam of the capital&#39;s famed Al-Azhar mosque and to show solidarity with Coptic Christians.

(AFP)

The Pajhwok Afghan News agency said a security source had confirmed the news

Egypt's Copts, targets of an apparent church bombing north of Cairo on Sunday, are the Middle East's largest Christian minority and one of the oldest. Making up about 10 percent of Egypt's population of 90 million, the Coptic Orthodox form the largest Christian denomination in the Muslim-majority country. Here is a recap of their history, their status today and recent attacks against them. 'Dawn of Christianity' The Copts trace their history to the dawn of Christianity, when Egypt was integrated into the Roman and later the Byzantine empire. The word "Copt" comes from the same root as the word for "Egyptian" in ancient Greek. The community's decline started with the Arab invasions of the 7th century and the progressive Islamisation of the country, which today is largely Sunni Muslim. Several churches and monasteries in Egypt are built on sites Copts believe were visited by the Holy Family. The Bible says Joseph, Mary and Jesus sought refuge in Egypt after Christ's birth to escape a massacre of newborns ordered by King Harod. Copts today Copts, represented in all social classes, are present across the whole country, with the strongest concentration in central and southern Egypt. Most adhere to the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, headed since 2012 by Pope Tawadros II. A minority is divided between Coptic Catholics and various Coptic Protestant branches. Tawadros, who succeeded pope Shenuda III, was chosen by a blindfolded altar boy picking his name from a chalice, according to tradition. The Catholic Copts, who form part of the Church's eastern rite, have been headed by patriarch Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak since 2013. The Vatican says some 165,000 Catholic Copts lived in Egypt in 2010. Poorly represented in government, Copts complain that they are sidelined from many posts in the justice system, universities and the police. Authorities often refuse to issue building permits for churches, arguing it would disturb the peace with their Muslim neighbours. Deadly violence Egypt's Copts have been the target of several deadly attacks since the 2011 uprising that toppled longtime president Hosni Mubarak. On January 1, 2011, more than 20 people died in the unclaimed bombing of a Coptic church in Egypt's second city, Alexandria. In March the same year, 13 people were killed in clashes between Muslims and Copts in Cairo's working class neighbourhood of Moqattam, where around 1,000 Christians had gathered to protest over the torching of a church. In May 2011, clashes between Muslims and Copts left 15 dead in the Cairo neighbourhood of Imbaba, where two churches were attacked. That October, almost 30 people -- mostly Coptic Christians -- were killed after the army charged at a protest in Cairo to denounce the torching of a church in southern Egypt. The 2013 ouster of Mubarak's elected Islamist successor Mohamed Morsi after just one year in power sparked further attacks against Christians. Pro-Morsi Islamists accused the Christian community of supporting his overthrow. They pointed to the appearance of Tawadros alongside President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on television in July 2013 as the then army chief, also surrounded by Muslim and opposition figures, announced Morsi's removal. The next month, security forces used deadly force to break up two pro-Morsi protest camps in Cairo. The following two weeks saw attacks against more than 40 churches across the country, according to Human Rights Watch. Amnesty International later said more than 200 Christian-owned properties were attacked and 43 churches seriously damaged, with at least four people killed. In December last year, a suicide bombing claimed by the Islamic State group killed 29 worshippers during a Sunday mass in Cairo. A spate of deadly jihadist-linked attacks in Egypt's restive Sinai Peninsula in February prompted some Coptic families to flee their homes. About 250 Christians took refuge in the Suez Canal city of Ismailiya after IS released a video calling for attacks against the minority. Pope Francis is set to visit Cairo late this month for talks with the grand imam of the capital's famed Al-Azhar mosque and to show solidarity with Coptic Christians. (AFP)

13 Indians died in Mother of all Bombs attack: Afghan news agency

The United States dropped a massive GBU-43 bomb, the largest non-nuclear bomb it has ever used in combat, in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday against a series of caves used by Islamic State militants, the military said.

As many as 36 suspected Islamic State militants have been killed in the strike, Reuters quoted the Afghanistan defence ministry as saying.

&quot;No civilian has been hurt and only the base which Daesh used to launch attacks in other parts of the province, was destroyed,&quot; Waziri, defence ministry spokesman, said in a statement, using an Arabic term for Islamic State, which has established a small stronghold in eastern Afghanistan and launched deadly attacks on the capital, Kabul.

<iframe allowfullscreen="true" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="315" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FWIONews%2Fvideos%2F633534410190531%2F&amp;show_text=0&amp;width=560" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="560"></iframe>

It was the first time the United States has used this size of bomb in a conflict. It was dropped from an MC-130 aircraft in the Achin district of Nangarhar province, close to the border with Pakistan, Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump said.

Also known as the &quot;mother of all bombs&quot;, the GBU-43 is a 21,600 pound (9,797 kg) GPS-guided munition and was first tested in March 2003, just days before the start of the Iraq war.

The security situation in Afghanistan remains precarious, with a number of militant groups trying to claim territory more than 15 years after the US&nbsp;invasion which toppled the Taliban government.

General John Nicholson, the head of US&nbsp;and international forces in Afghanistan, said the bomb was used against caves and bunkers housing fighters of the Islamic State in Afghanistan, also known as ISIS-K.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer opened his daily news briefing speaking about the use of the bomb and said, &quot;We targeted a system of tunnels and caves that ISIS fighters used to move around freely, making it easier for them to target US&nbsp;military advisers and Afghan forces in the area.&quot;

Former Afghan president Hamid Karzai&nbsp;condemned the attack, calling it &quot;inhumane&#39;&quot;.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I vehemently and in strongest words condemn the dropping of the latest weapon, the largest non-nuclear <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/bomb?src=hash">#bomb</a>, on Afghanistan by US...1/2
&mdash; Hamid Karzai (@KarzaiH) <a href="https://twitter.com/KarzaiH/status/852606412064772096">April 13, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
2/2 military. This is not the war on terror but the inhuman and most brutal misuse of our country as testing ground for new and dangerous...
&mdash; Hamid Karzai (@KarzaiH) <a href="https://twitter.com/KarzaiH/status/852606929142722560">April 13, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
2/3 weapons. It is upon us,Afghans, to stop the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/USA?src=hash">#USA</a>.
&mdash; Hamid Karzai (@KarzaiH) <a href="https://twitter.com/KarzaiH/status/852607272035524609">April 13, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Last week, a US&nbsp;soldier was killed in the same district as the bomb was dropped while conducting operations against Islamic State.

&quot;The United States takes the fight against ISIS very seriously and in order to defeat the group, we must deny them operational space, which we did,&quot; Spicer said.

He said the bomb was used at around 7 pm local time and described the device as &quot;a large, powerful and accurately delivered weapon.&quot; The United States took &quot;all precautions necessary to prevent civilian casualties and collateral damage,&quot; he said.

US&nbsp;officials say intelligence suggests Islamic State is based overwhelmingly in Nangarhar and neighboring Kunar province.

Estimates of its strength in Afghanistan vary. US&nbsp;officials have said they believe the movement has only 700 fighters but Afghan officials estimate it has about 1,500.

Islamic State&#39;s offshoot in Afghanistan is suspected of carrying out several attacks on minority Shi&#39;ite Muslim targets.

The Afghan Taliban, which is trying to overthrow the US-backed government in Kabul, are fiercely opposed to Islamic State and the two group have clashed as they seek to expand territory and influence.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="videos-block">
<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9"><iframe class="embed-responsive-item" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d4DLzioGq5M"></iframe></div>
</div>

<div class="media-description">
The strike was carried out to neutralise an IS tunnel. The US has never used this bomb in its military operation. It has a blast radius of nearly 50 kms. A GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, nicknamed MOAB, was dropped at 7pm (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

(Reuters)

&nbsp;

The MOAB, also known as the 'mother of all bombs', was used against caves and bunkers housing fighters of the Islamic State

The United States dropped a massive GBU-43 bomb, the largest non-nuclear bomb it has ever used in combat, in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday against a series of caves used by Islamic State militants, the military said. As many as 36 suspected Islamic State militants have been killed in the strike, Reuters quoted the Afghanistan defence ministry as saying. "No civilian has been hurt and only the base which Daesh used to launch attacks in other parts of the province, was destroyed," Waziri, defence ministry spokesman, said in a statement, using an Arabic term for Islamic State, which has established a small stronghold in eastern Afghanistan and launched deadly attacks on the capital, Kabul. It was the first time the United States has used this size of bomb in a conflict. It was dropped from an MC-130 aircraft in the Achin district of Nangarhar province, close to the border with Pakistan, Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump said. Also known as the "mother of all bombs", the GBU-43 is a 21,600 pound (9,797 kg) GPS-guided munition and was first tested in March 2003, just days before the start of the Iraq war. The security situation in Afghanistan remains precarious, with a number of militant groups trying to claim territory more than 15 years after the US invasion which toppled the Taliban government. General John Nicholson, the head of US and international forces in Afghanistan, said the bomb was used against caves and bunkers housing fighters of the Islamic State in Afghanistan, also known as ISIS-K. White House spokesman Sean Spicer opened his daily news briefing speaking about the use of the bomb and said, "We targeted a system of tunnels and caves that ISIS fighters used to move around freely, making it easier for them to target US military advisers and Afghan forces in the area." Former Afghan president Hamid Karzai condemned the attack, calling it "inhumane'". I vehemently and in strongest words condemn the dropping of the latest weapon, the largest non-nuclear #bomb, on Afghanistan by US...1/2 — Hamid Karzai (@KarzaiH) April 13, 2017 × 2/2 military. This is not the war on terror but the inhuman and most brutal misuse of our country as testing ground for new and dangerous... — Hamid Karzai (@KarzaiH) April 13, 2017 × 2/3 weapons. It is upon us,Afghans, to stop the #USA. — Hamid Karzai (@KarzaiH) April 13, 2017 × Last week, a US soldier was killed in the same district as the bomb was dropped while conducting operations against Islamic State. "The United States takes the fight against ISIS very seriously and in order to defeat the group, we must deny them operational space, which we did," Spicer said. He said the bomb was used at around 7 pm local time and described the device as "a large, powerful and accurately delivered weapon." The United States took "all precautions necessary to prevent civilian casualties and collateral damage," he said. US officials say intelligence suggests Islamic State is based overwhelmingly in Nangarhar and neighboring Kunar province. Estimates of its strength in Afghanistan vary. US officials have said they believe the movement has only 700 fighters but Afghan officials estimate it has about 1,500. Islamic State's offshoot in Afghanistan is suspected of carrying out several attacks on minority Shi'ite Muslim targets. The Afghan Taliban, which is trying to overthrow the US-backed government in Kabul, are fiercely opposed to Islamic State and the two group have clashed as they seek to expand territory and influence. The strike was carried out to neutralise an IS tunnel. The US has never used this bomb in its military operation. It has a blast radius of nearly 50 kms. A GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, nicknamed MOAB, was dropped at 7pm (WION) × (Reuters)

US 'MOAB' bombing in Afghanistan killed 36 Islamic State militants

Afghanistan plans to double the number of elite special forces from 17,000 troops, officials said, part of a long-term strategy to bolster units stretched and exhausted by persistent attacks from Taliban insurgents and other Islamist militants.

Special forces, who represent a small fraction of the 300,000-strong armed forces, have been carrying out nearly 70 per cent of the army&#39;s offensive operations across the country, underlining Afghanistan&#39;s heavy reliance on them.

While regular forces, including police, are deployed largely to defend positions, special forces are taking the battle to militants from Kunduz in the north to Helmand in the south, sometimes working in tandem with US counterparts.

&quot;Our commando forces have to be strengthened and have to be better equipped,&quot; Defence Ministry spokesman Dawlat Waziri said.

Waziri declined to give exact numbers, saying only that the special operations division would be increased to the level of an army corps.

But three Afghan and Western officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that under current plans, special forces would double and the government was talking to foreign donors about contributing through funding and other assistance.

Recruitment in recent months has focussed on replacing special forces troops lost during last year&#39;s fighting, meaning the drive to &quot;substantially&quot; increase numbers would take longer, said NATO coalition spokesman Captain Bill Salvin.

&quot;It&#39;s going to take several years to grow to the level that (Afghan President Ashraf) Ghani currently envisions,&quot; Salvin said.

Recruitment and training was already underway for more commandos, as well as special forces support units like medical care, intelligence, logistics and communications, he added.

Trump&#39;s call

On exercises at the Afghan army&#39;s special operations training base just outside Kabul, soldiers were confident that they could handle the workload.

&quot;There has been an increase in our operations, but we will keep up our efforts,&quot; said Fawad Kamal, a special forces commander. &quot;There hasn&#39;t been any interruption.&quot;

When they reach the battlefield, newly trained troops will likely be conducting offensive operations, from tracking militant cells to clearing towns seized by insurgents.

&quot;There is a huge need for the number of commandos and special forces to increase in the country,&quot; said Mohammed Arif, a new commando recruit. &quot;As long as they are well equipped, they can defend the country very well.&quot;

Afghanistan&#39;s international allies regularly praise the performance of the special forces, but there is also concern that the workload places them under too much strain.

Last year, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, discussed plans to strengthen and regenerate the force over the winter months.

At the special forces base, NATO trainers work alongside Afghan instructors, teaching a range of courses from basic shooting and room clearance for new commandos, to advanced leadership courses for the more experienced.

The NATO instructors are part of the Resolute Support mission involving some 13,000 international troops, more than half of them Americans, who train special and regular forces and sometimes advise Afghan troops on the battlefield.

A smaller US&nbsp;counter-terrorism unit is engaged in fighting radical networks including al Qaeda and Islamic State, and often works closely with elite Afghan units in the field.

Nicholson said last month that thousands more advisers would be needed to help prepare Afghan forces to break the &quot;stalemate&quot; in the 15-year conflict, a factor US&nbsp;President Donald Trump must consider when he decides his strategy for Afghanistan.

More than two years after the departure of most international troops, Afghan forces control just 57 per cent of the country, compared with 72 per cent a year ago, according to SIGAR, a Congressional oversight body.

&quot;A lot was asked of them&quot;

The outgoing US&nbsp;military spokesman in Kabul, Brigadier General Charles Cleveland, said Afghan special forces were &quot;the absolute best in this region&quot;. 
&quot;But by the end of the year they were stretched. An awful lot was asked of them.&quot;

Cleveland said any move to boost commando numbers would be factored into coalition deliberations over the future of the international mission.

It peaked at some 100,000 soldiers in 2011, but fell sharply with the intention of eventually handing over control to local forces. A stubborn enemy, lack of resources and high casualty rates among Afghan troops have seen that objective pushed back.

&quot;We&#39;ll adjust as we see fit,&quot; Cleveland said. &quot;As they (special forces) go into the spring fighting, they are absolutely going to be stronger than where they were in the fall.&quot;

NATO is also trying to help the conventional army corps become more effective and relieve pressure on elite units, according to Cleveland

.&quot;The real goal is to get the conventional corps up to the same level of proficiency at their job as the special forces are at their jobs.

&quot;We want these corps to be able to conduct their operations without having to misuse, if you will, the special operations forces.&quot;

(Reuters)

&nbsp;

Special forces have been carrying out nearly 70 per cent of the army's offensive operations across the country, underlining Afghanistan's heavy reliance on them

Afghanistan plans to double the number of elite special forces from 17,000 troops, officials said, part of a long-term strategy to bolster units stretched and exhausted by persistent attacks from Taliban insurgents and other Islamist militants. Special forces, who represent a small fraction of the 300,000-strong armed forces, have been carrying out nearly 70 per cent of the army's offensive operations across the country, underlining Afghanistan's heavy reliance on them. While regular forces, including police, are deployed largely to defend positions, special forces are taking the battle to militants from Kunduz in the north to Helmand in the south, sometimes working in tandem with US counterparts. "Our commando forces have to be strengthened and have to be better equipped," Defence Ministry spokesman Dawlat Waziri said. Waziri declined to give exact numbers, saying only that the special operations division would be increased to the level of an army corps. But three Afghan and Western officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that under current plans, special forces would double and the government was talking to foreign donors about contributing through funding and other assistance. Recruitment in recent months has focussed on replacing special forces troops lost during last year's fighting, meaning the drive to "substantially" increase numbers would take longer, said NATO coalition spokesman Captain Bill Salvin. "It's going to take several years to grow to the level that (Afghan President Ashraf) Ghani currently envisions," Salvin said. Recruitment and training was already underway for more commandos, as well as special forces support units like medical care, intelligence, logistics and communications, he added. Trump's call On exercises at the Afghan army's special operations training base just outside Kabul, soldiers were confident that they could handle the workload. "There has been an increase in our operations, but we will keep up our efforts," said Fawad Kamal, a special forces commander. "There hasn't been any interruption." When they reach the battlefield, newly trained troops will likely be conducting offensive operations, from tracking militant cells to clearing towns seized by insurgents. "There is a huge need for the number of commandos and special forces to increase in the country," said Mohammed Arif, a new commando recruit. "As long as they are well equipped, they can defend the country very well." Afghanistan's international allies regularly praise the performance of the special forces, but there is also concern that the workload places them under too much strain. Last year, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, discussed plans to strengthen and regenerate the force over the winter months. At the special forces base, NATO trainers work alongside Afghan instructors, teaching a range of courses from basic shooting and room clearance for new commandos, to advanced leadership courses for the more experienced. The NATO instructors are part of the Resolute Support mission involving some 13,000 international troops, more than half of them Americans, who train special and regular forces and sometimes advise Afghan troops on the battlefield. A smaller US counter-terrorism unit is engaged in fighting radical networks including al Qaeda and Islamic State, and often works closely with elite Afghan units in the field. Nicholson said last month that thousands more advisers would be needed to help prepare Afghan forces to break the "stalemate" in the 15-year conflict, a factor US President Donald Trump must consider when he decides his strategy for Afghanistan. More than two years after the departure of most international troops, Afghan forces control just 57 per cent of the country, compared with 72 per cent a year ago, according to SIGAR, a Congressional oversight body. "A lot was asked of them" The outgoing US military spokesman in Kabul, Brigadier General Charles Cleveland, said Afghan special forces were "the absolute best in this region". "But by the end of the year they were stretched. An awful lot was asked of them." Cleveland said any move to boost commando numbers would be factored into coalition deliberations over the future of the international mission. It peaked at some 100,000 soldiers in 2011, but fell sharply with the intention of eventually handing over control to local forces. A stubborn enemy, lack of resources and high casualty rates among Afghan troops have seen that objective pushed back. "We'll adjust as we see fit," Cleveland said. "As they (special forces) go into the spring fighting, they are absolutely going to be stronger than where they were in the fall." NATO is also trying to help the conventional army corps become more effective and relieve pressure on elite units, according to Cleveland ."The real goal is to get the conventional corps up to the same level of proficiency at their job as the special forces are at their jobs. "We want these corps to be able to conduct their operations without having to misuse, if you will, the special operations forces." (Reuters)

Afghanistan plans to double special forces as threats grow

Smokey-eyed Zulala Hashemi, standing tall in four-inch gold heels, wants to sing for women.

The 18-year-old has become the first girl to reach the final of popular television music talent show Afghan Star.

Hashemi, a native of eastern Jalalabad, a stronghold of Taliban and Islamic State insurgents, will face off against the first rapper of the competition in Monday&#39;s final.

Their clash will be one of the most trailblazing in the popular show&#39;s 12-year history.

Quietly rooting for Zulala is Aryana Saeed, one of the judges and an indefatigable women&#39;s rights activist.&nbsp;

Saeed, who was born in Kabul but usually lives in London, is likened widely to American reality star Kim Kardashian and is despised by religious conservatives for her figure-hugging clothes.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/000_mp98i-20170318034420.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Aryana Sayeed (L) poses with Zulala Hashemi. (AFP)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Zulala and Saeed hug in a studio at local television station Tolo, their eyelashes fluttering.

&quot;I have never hidden my support as women have little chance in this country,&quot; Saeed told AFP. &quot;For the first time people have voted for a girl,&nbsp;and one who comes from a very conservative province, a land of Islamic State zealots.&quot;

Afghan Star, Tolo&#39;s adaptation of &quot;American Idol&quot;, has been a huge hit in conservative Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban regime that banned music and cinema.&nbsp;

But since its launch in 2005, it has also seen a backlash from mullahs for the way it features unveiled women singing and dancing.

A woman came in third place in 2008, and since then no female singer has gone beyond 7th or 8th position, said Omid Nezami, the show&#39;s presenter and a former contestant.

Aside from the backing of the public, Zulala can count on support from her mother Merem Hashemi, a smiling woman who designed and hand-stitched all her daughter&#39;s on-stage costumes.

&quot;Even if I do not win, I will be a singer,&quot; says Zulala in her deep voice, determination in her almond-shaped eyes.

&quot;I wear traditional dresses but my songs follow the path of Aryana. I want to convey a message to Afghan women: they must claim their rights and explore their talents,&quot; she added.

Massood Sanjer, the head of Tolo TV, said it was nothing short of revolutionary that a girl from conservative Jalalabad had reached the finals.

&quot;This is exactly what this country needs right now,&quot; he enthused, alluding to growing insecurity.&nbsp;

Tolo&#39;s maze of production sets lie behind a thick steel door, manned by armed guards and barricaded against car bombs and gunfire. The TV station has stopped outdoor recordings owing to security concerns.

The Afghan capital is regularly hit with insurgent gun and bomb attacks. Earlier this month, a group of gunmen stormed Afghanistan&#39;s largest military hospital in Kabul, killing more than 100 people, according to multiple surviving staff.

Competing against Zulala is Sayed Jamal Mubarez, a barber and a young rapper from northern Mazar-i-Sharif city.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/000_mp89t%20(1)-20170318034756.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Zulala Hashemi (R) stands alongside competitor Sayed Jamal Mubarez as they perform. (AFP)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Dressed in baggy pants, a cap and red sneakers, Mubarez shut down his hair salon for three months to participate in the show, borrowing $8 from his neighbours for the bus ride to Kabul.

At 23, he is the breadwinner of his family and is keenly eyeing the Afghan Star prize, a motorcycle and a trip to Kazakhstan.

&quot;Jamal has been in the lead since the beginning,&quot; said Omid.

However, his chances are weak if the voting is along ethnic lines in the deeply divided country.

Zulala is from the dominant Pashtun majority, whereas Mubarez is a Hazara, a long-persecuted minority.

&quot;Every show I encourage the audience to vote for talent, not according to ethnicity,&quot; Omid said.

In the semi-finals, Aryana Saeed took to the stage, intoning a new song dedicated to Farkhunda and Rukshana , &nbsp;two Afghan women who were beaten to death and became a symbol of endemic violence against women.

&quot;Your status is that of half a man/ But you are punished twice as much (...) Arise and shout / Raise your sleeves / Claim your rights / You can do it!&quot;

The final of the show will be live on Monday, on the eve of the Afghan New Year.

(AFP)

This music talent show's production sets lie behind a thick steel door, manned by armed guards and barricaded against car bombs

Smokey-eyed Zulala Hashemi, standing tall in four-inch gold heels, wants to sing for women. The 18-year-old has become the first girl to reach the final of popular television music talent show Afghan Star. Hashemi, a native of eastern Jalalabad, a stronghold of Taliban and Islamic State insurgents, will face off against the first rapper of the competition in Monday's final. Their clash will be one of the most trailblazing in the popular show's 12-year history. Quietly rooting for Zulala is Aryana Saeed, one of the judges and an indefatigable women's rights activist. Saeed, who was born in Kabul but usually lives in London, is likened widely to American reality star Kim Kardashian and is despised by religious conservatives for her figure-hugging clothes. Aryana Sayeed (L) poses with Zulala Hashemi. (AFP) × Zulala and Saeed hug in a studio at local television station Tolo, their eyelashes fluttering. "I have never hidden my support as women have little chance in this country," Saeed told AFP. "For the first time people have voted for a girl, and one who comes from a very conservative province, a land of Islamic State zealots." Afghan Star, Tolo's adaptation of "American Idol", has been a huge hit in conservative Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban regime that banned music and cinema. But since its launch in 2005, it has also seen a backlash from mullahs for the way it features unveiled women singing and dancing. A woman came in third place in 2008, and since then no female singer has gone beyond 7th or 8th position, said Omid Nezami, the show's presenter and a former contestant. Aside from the backing of the public, Zulala can count on support from her mother Merem Hashemi, a smiling woman who designed and hand-stitched all her daughter's on-stage costumes. "Even if I do not win, I will be a singer," says Zulala in her deep voice, determination in her almond-shaped eyes. "I wear traditional dresses but my songs follow the path of Aryana. I want to convey a message to Afghan women: they must claim their rights and explore their talents," she added. Massood Sanjer, the head of Tolo TV, said it was nothing short of revolutionary that a girl from conservative Jalalabad had reached the finals. "This is exactly what this country needs right now," he enthused, alluding to growing insecurity. Tolo's maze of production sets lie behind a thick steel door, manned by armed guards and barricaded against car bombs and gunfire. The TV station has stopped outdoor recordings owing to security concerns. The Afghan capital is regularly hit with insurgent gun and bomb attacks. Earlier this month, a group of gunmen stormed Afghanistan's largest military hospital in Kabul, killing more than 100 people, according to multiple surviving staff. Competing against Zulala is Sayed Jamal Mubarez, a barber and a young rapper from northern Mazar-i-Sharif city. Zulala Hashemi (R) stands alongside competitor Sayed Jamal Mubarez as they perform. (AFP) × Dressed in baggy pants, a cap and red sneakers, Mubarez shut down his hair salon for three months to participate in the show, borrowing $8 from his neighbours for the bus ride to Kabul. At 23, he is the breadwinner of his family and is keenly eyeing the Afghan Star prize, a motorcycle and a trip to Kazakhstan. "Jamal has been in the lead since the beginning," said Omid. However, his chances are weak if the voting is along ethnic lines in the deeply divided country. Zulala is from the dominant Pashtun majority, whereas Mubarez is a Hazara, a long-persecuted minority. "Every show I encourage the audience to vote for talent, not according to ethnicity," Omid said. In the semi-finals, Aryana Saeed took to the stage, intoning a new song dedicated to Farkhunda and Rukshana , two Afghan women who were beaten to death and became a symbol of endemic violence against women. "Your status is that of half a man/ But you are punished twice as much (...) Arise and shout / Raise your sleeves / Claim your rights / You can do it!" The final of the show will be live on Monday, on the eve of the Afghan New Year. (AFP)

Afghan star: Rap, stilettos and a musical revolution in war-torn Afghanistan

A suicide car bomb detonated near an army base in the eastern Afghan province of Khost on Friday, killing one soldier and wounding several before the army repelled an attack on the base by four gunmen, the district chief said.

The blast, 50 metres&nbsp;from the base, was heard several miles away and damaged several shops, homes and a school, Akbar Zadran, the chief of Sabari district, told Reuters.

Four gunmen attacked the base but were killed after an hour-long gun battle, Zadran said.

In a statement, the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack and said it had caused heavy casualties. The Islamist movement often exaggerates casualties caused by its operations.&nbsp;

The attack follows an assault on a military air base in Khost province last week, and comes just ahead of the normal start of the spring fighting season, when Taliban insurgents and the Afghan army step up operations.

The Afghan government controls less than 60 per cent of the country after territorial gains by the insurgents since NATO-led forces ended their combat operations at the end of 2014.

US&nbsp;and Afghan officials have warned about increased fighting this year as the Taliban look to widen their influence. 
The Taliban are seeking to expel foreign troops, defeat the US-backed government and reimpose Islamic law after their 2001 ouster.

The head of US&nbsp;Central Command, General Joseph Votel, this month asked for more American troops to join the roughly 8,400 already stationed in Afghanistan to break the stalemate.

(Reuters)

One soldier was killed and several wounded

A suicide car bomb detonated near an army base in the eastern Afghan province of Khost on Friday, killing one soldier and wounding several before the army repelled an attack on the base by four gunmen, the district chief said. The blast, 50 metres from the base, was heard several miles away and damaged several shops, homes and a school, Akbar Zadran, the chief of Sabari district, told Reuters. Four gunmen attacked the base but were killed after an hour-long gun battle, Zadran said. In a statement, the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack and said it had caused heavy casualties. The Islamist movement often exaggerates casualties caused by its operations. The attack follows an assault on a military air base in Khost province last week, and comes just ahead of the normal start of the spring fighting season, when Taliban insurgents and the Afghan army step up operations. The Afghan government controls less than 60 per cent of the country after territorial gains by the insurgents since NATO-led forces ended their combat operations at the end of 2014. US and Afghan officials have warned about increased fighting this year as the Taliban look to widen their influence. The Taliban are seeking to expel foreign troops, defeat the US-backed government and reimpose Islamic law after their 2001 ouster. The head of US Central Command, General Joseph Votel, this month asked for more American troops to join the roughly 8,400 already stationed in Afghanistan to break the stalemate. (Reuters)

Taliban car bomb hits army base in eastern Afghanistan

A suicide car bomber rammed into a bus carrying employees of one of Afghanistan&#39;s biggest telecom companies during rush hour Monday, just days after a deadly insurgent assault on the country&#39;s largest military hospital.

At least one woman was killed and 19 others wounded in the powerful blast, which left the Roshan Telecom bus badly mangled and the area littered with smouldering debris and twisted metal.&nbsp;

No group has so far claimed responsibility for the assault, but it comes as the Taliban step up attacks even before the official start of the annual spring offensive.

&quot;Kabul Police have arrested three suspects related to an explosion in which 19 civilians, including four women, were wounded and one woman was killed,&quot; interior ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqqi said on Twitter.

A Roshan official confirmed to AFP that a number of employees were wounded in the attack, but declined to say whether their vehicle was the intended target.

Security officials cordoned off the area as firefighters and ambulances rushed to the scene as clouds of smoke filled the air.

The bombing comes after gunmen disguised as doctors stormed Sardar Daud Khan hospital in Kabul last Wednesday, with insiders including two interns among the attackers, multiple surviving staff and security sources told AFP.

The defence ministry insists only around 30 people were killed by five attackers. But security sources and the survivors, some of whom counted dead bodies, said the death toll exceeded 100.

The carnage inside the heavily guarded hospital points at a spectacular intelligence failure and spotlights how insurgents have managed to infiltrate top government and military institutions in Afghanistan.

The savagery of the assault was characterised by how the assailants stabbed bed-ridden patients, threw grenades into crowded wards and shot people from point-blank range.

The Islamic State group claimed it was behind the attack via its propaganda agency Amaq -- hours after the Taliban denied responsibility.

But the survivors AFP spoke to said the attackers chanted &quot;Allahu Akbar&quot; (God is great) and &quot;Long live Taliban&quot; in Pashto.

The Afghan defence ministry said a government commission had been set up to investigate the attack.

The violence underscores rising insecurity in Afghanistan. The country is bracing for an intense fighting season in the spring as the government`s repeated bids to launch peace negotiations with the Taliban have failed.

Afghan forces, already beset by record casualties, desertions and non-existent &quot;ghost soldiers&quot; on the payroll, have been struggling to beat back insurgents since US-led NATO troops ended their combat mission in December 2014.

Kabul last month endorsed US General John Nicholson&#39;s call for thousands of additional coalition troops to hold off the militants before the spring offensive.

Extra troops were needed to end the stalemate in the war, Nicholson, the top American commander in Afghanistan, told the US Congress in what could be President Donald Trump`s first major test of military strategy. 
 
(AFP)

 
&nbsp;

One person died and 19 were wounded, but no group has so far claimed responsibility for the attack

A suicide car bomber rammed into a bus carrying employees of one of Afghanistan's biggest telecom companies during rush hour Monday, just days after a deadly insurgent assault on the country's largest military hospital. At least one woman was killed and 19 others wounded in the powerful blast, which left the Roshan Telecom bus badly mangled and the area littered with smouldering debris and twisted metal. No group has so far claimed responsibility for the assault, but it comes as the Taliban step up attacks even before the official start of the annual spring offensive. "Kabul Police have arrested three suspects related to an explosion in which 19 civilians, including four women, were wounded and one woman was killed," interior ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqqi said on Twitter. A Roshan official confirmed to AFP that a number of employees were wounded in the attack, but declined to say whether their vehicle was the intended target. Security officials cordoned off the area as firefighters and ambulances rushed to the scene as clouds of smoke filled the air. The bombing comes after gunmen disguised as doctors stormed Sardar Daud Khan hospital in Kabul last Wednesday, with insiders including two interns among the attackers, multiple surviving staff and security sources told AFP. The defence ministry insists only around 30 people were killed by five attackers. But security sources and the survivors, some of whom counted dead bodies, said the death toll exceeded 100. The carnage inside the heavily guarded hospital points at a spectacular intelligence failure and spotlights how insurgents have managed to infiltrate top government and military institutions in Afghanistan. The savagery of the assault was characterised by how the assailants stabbed bed-ridden patients, threw grenades into crowded wards and shot people from point-blank range. The Islamic State group claimed it was behind the attack via its propaganda agency Amaq -- hours after the Taliban denied responsibility. But the survivors AFP spoke to said the attackers chanted "Allahu Akbar" (God is great) and "Long live Taliban" in Pashto. The Afghan defence ministry said a government commission had been set up to investigate the attack. The violence underscores rising insecurity in Afghanistan. The country is bracing for an intense fighting season in the spring as the government`s repeated bids to launch peace negotiations with the Taliban have failed. Afghan forces, already beset by record casualties, desertions and non-existent "ghost soldiers" on the payroll, have been struggling to beat back insurgents since US-led NATO troops ended their combat mission in December 2014. Kabul last month endorsed US General John Nicholson's call for thousands of additional coalition troops to hold off the militants before the spring offensive. Extra troops were needed to end the stalemate in the war, Nicholson, the top American commander in Afghanistan, told the US Congress in what could be President Donald Trump`s first major test of military strategy. (AFP)

Powerful blast rocks downtown Kabul during rush hour

afghanistan-0

Afghanistan, News on Afghanistan, stories on Afghanistan, articles on Afghanistan, Afghanistan stories at Wion, Afghanistan news, Afghanistan latest news

afghanistan 0