Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Trump ends ex-CIA head John Brennan's security access - BBC News

Donald Trump has revoked the security clearance of ex-CIA chief John Brennan, denying the US president's critic any access to sensitive information.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders announced the decision by reading a statement from Mr Trump.

The statement cited Mr Brennan's "erratic conduct and behaviour".

In response, Mr Brennan tweeted that the move was part of President Trump's broader effort to "suppress freedom of speech and punish critics".

"It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out.

"My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent."  

"As the head of the executive branch and commander-in-chief, I have a unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation's classified information, including by controlling access to it.

"I have decided to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency. 

"Historically, former heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain access to classified information after their government service so that they can consult with their successors, regarding matters about which they may have special insights and as a professional courtesy.

"Neither of these justifications supports Mr Brennan's continued access to classified information."

The statement added that Mr Trump was also reviewing access to classified information for former FBI chief James Comey, whom he fired last year, former director of national intelligence James Clapper, former National Security Agency director Michael Hayden and former attorney general Sally Yates, among others.Read More

Trump ends ex-CIA head John Brennan's security access - BBC News

Afghanistan: top UN official denounces ‘extreme’ suffering of civilians in Ghazni

With the death toll rising after days of intense fighting for the Afghan city of Ghazni, south-west of Kabul, the Head of the United Nations mission in the country (UNAMA) said on Wednesday that the situation was “unacceptable” and called on warring parties to lay down their arms and seek a political solution to the conflict.

“The Taliban’s attack against Ghazni city, and the subsequent fighting in densely populated urban spaces, has again caused terrible suffering to civilians caught in the conflict,” said Tadamichi Yamamoto, in a statement.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), when the fighting began, about 270,000 residents were trapped in the city, which is located about 150 km south-west of Afghanistan’s capital Kabul. Many seem to have fled the town, according to sources on the ground.

In five days of hostilities, about 150 civilians may have been killed in the fighting, along with hundreds of Government and Taliban fighters.

Reliable sources on the ground are reporting that Ghazni Public Hospital is “overwhelmed by a continuous influx” of injured members of the government forces, Taliban fighters and civilians.From the humanitarian perspective, the situation in Ghazni “remains particularly grim”, UN Special Representative Yamamoto explained.

“The fighting has led to electricity outages along with water and food shortages,” noted Mr. Yamamoto, adding that “communication networks and media outlets have been shuttered, and roads remain blocked, preventing freedom of movement for families seeking safety.”

According to OCHA, access into the town remains challenging for aid workers as well. - More

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Five German cities among 30 most livable in the world: Economist Intelligence Unit

Vienna has been ranked as the most livable city in the world for the first time, according to the latest Economist Intelligence Unit global survey. Five German cities, including Frankfurt, have ranked in the top 30.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has ranked Frankfurt, Hamburg, Berlin, Munich and Düsseldorf in the top 30 of its latest ranking of global livability, which was released on Tuesday.

Frankfurt ranked the highest at 12th, with the EIU, part of UK news magazine The Economist, giving it a livability score of 96.0 out of 100. None of the German cities received a rating of lower than 93.0, which was the score Düsseldorf received, and all five were among the 15 best-ranked European cities.

The survey, which measures "challenges to lifestyle across 140 cities around the world," ranked Vienna the highest with a rating of 99.1. It marks the first time the Austrian capital has topped the list, displacing Melbourne, which topped the list for the last seven years.

Australia and Canada had the most cities in the top 10 — Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide for Australia and Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto for Canada. Japan also had multiple cities, Osaka and Tokyo, among the 10 best.

Copenhagen, which ranked ninth, was the only other European city in the top 10. - Read More

Can A Reagan-Era Policy Offer An Alternative To Tariffs?

It was 1981.
A new Republican president with a background in the entertainment business was trying to jump-start the U.S. economy out of a brutal recession.

The president pushed tax cuts.

Then his administration had to come up with a plan to deal with trade. America's auto industry was suffering, as new competition came in from Japan.

What the Reagan administration did about it has shaped the auto industry we see today in America. And it could serve as an example for the Trump administration in its ongoing, rancorous trade battles.

The man that President Ronald Reagan put in charge of his trade policy in 1981 was William Brock.

Brock says that, at that time, Congress was looking to take tough action to stop Japanese car imports. He went to the Japanese and proposed a different solution.

"The thought was that if Japan would put some quiet, voluntary limits on their shipments, it would help ease the problem until we could walk through a transition period," Brock says.

This idea is what's known as a voluntary export restraint. Instead of a tariff, which acts as a tax on imports, the restraint is more like a voluntary quota. The Japanese carmakers agreed they wouldn't send more than certain amount of cars to the U.S. each year. - Read More

Can A Reagan-Era Policy Offer An Alternative To Tariffs?

Afghanistan: Battle-torn Ghazni residents 'can't find food'

Food supplies in the Afghan city of Ghazni are running low, as a battle with the Taliban rages for a fourth day, the UN has warned.

"Life is getting hard for people, they can't get food or water," a man who fled the city on Sunday told the BBC.

More than 100 government soldiers and police have been killed since the Taliban stormed Ghazni from four sides early on Friday.

The city lies on the key highway between Kabul and Kandahar.

Control of it would effectively allow the Taliban to cut off southern Afghanistan from Kabul, the capital. The success of the militants' assault has come as a blow to the government of President Ashraf Ghani, which has now deployed an extra 1,000 troops.

The government and its Nato allies insist they are in control of Ghazni but reports suggest Taliban fighters continue to roam the streets and still control many government buildings. Phone communications are down, making it difficult to verify information coming out of the city.

In a news conference confirming the deaths of more than 100 members of the security forces, the government said it had killed up to 200 Taliban fighters. - Read More

Afghans in embattled city 'can't find food'

Tuesday, August 07, 2018

Donald Trump is doing better on Afghanistan than his predecessor - The Economist

A ONCE-popular argument that President Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy is not substantially different from Barack Obama’s is going down in a blaze of trade agreements. Yet on Afghanistan it remains broadly true. Mr Obama came to power describing Afghanistan’s conflict as the “war we have to win”, but never seemed convinced that that was possible. After a stab at escalating the conflict, he devoted his presidency to ending it. It was time, he said in 2011, the year the war became the longest in American history, “to focus on nation-building here at home.” Mr Trump has long said the same. His decision to launch a much smaller escalation last year came with the closest thing he can muster to an apology attached: “My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like to follow my instincts.” Even so, his record on Afghanistan, including this week a promise of peace talks to add to that modest military reinforcement, is starting to look much better than his predecessor’s.

This chiefly reflects what a low bar Mr Obama set. Reluctantly persuaded that withdrawal from Afghanistan would spell defeat, as the Taliban rushed to seize the territory vacated by over 100,000 Western troops, Mr Obama left 8,000 behind to hold the line. But with the Taliban controlling or contesting 70% of the country, the largely incompetent Afghan army flailing, and the Americans bound by strict rules of engagement, it was unclear how they could. At the request of his generals, who may fear the strategic impact of defeat in Afghanistan as much as the prospect of it again falling into the hands of foreign terrorists, Mr Trump grudgingly agreed to send 3,500 reinforcements. He also relaxed the rules and increased American air strikes, military trainers and mentoring of front-line Afghan troops. He presented these changes as a rebuke to his predecessor. They might alternatively be seen as an acceptance of Mr Obama’s shrivelled ambition—to stave off defeat in Afghanistan until the Afghan government can fend for itself—and a modest attempt to make that achievable.

Unsurprisingly, then, Mr Trump’s measures have not transformed the battlefield, where the Taliban remain in the ascendant. Instead of encouraging the Afghan government to take back territory, America is reported to be urging it to withdraw from remote outposts to reduce casualties. The level of violence continues to be horrifying, especially among civilians. More were killed in the first six months of this year than in any previous year on record, in part because of increased American bombing. Yet there is at least more confidence that the Taliban can be prevented from taking a major town. And the 315,000-strong Afghan armed forces are said to be improving. Compared with the debacle Mr Trump inherited, this represents progress.

Revelations that a senior American diplomat, Alice Wells, met Taliban representatives in Qatar last month are also encouraging. America and its Afghan ally have been keen to negotiate with the insurgents since the demise of Mr Obama’s short-lived surge confirmed their inability to end the war militarily. But they have generally insisted that the government must lead that effort. Meanwhile the Taliban, to underline that their foremost demand is the withdrawal of foreign troops, say they will only speak to America. It is therefore notable that Ms Wells’s meeting appears to have taken place without any Afghan official present. That represents an overdue acknowledgment by America that the Taliban are formidable enough to set negotiating terms. It also implies an admission that America is not merely the benevolent instrument of Afghans’ democratic will it claims to be, but an independent actor in a multi-layered civil conflict, whose continued presence in Afghanistan is a legitimate subject of debate.

This is still a far cry from offering Mr Trump a way out. Stitched together by British imperialists in the late 19th century, Afghanistan’s feuding ethnic groups have never shared power uncoerced, and 40 years of on-off civil war have made them even more reluctant to. The government is deeply divided along ethnic lines. It is hard to imagine how its members might accommodate the Taliban—even if they want to be accommodated. It is unclear that the mullahs have given up on a military victory. It is even unclear which faction of the Taliban, the fundamentalist leadership or the more pragmatic rump, their representatives in Qatar might speak for. If Mr Trump does view the putative talks as a means to declare victory and quit Afghanistan, as some suspect, he has simply given up on the place.

If the president still wants to avoid that, however, he can probably do so indefinitely. The war has cost America a trillion dollars—more in real terms than it spent on rebuilding Europe under the Marshall Plan—and the lives of 2,300 troops. Yet its current cost—roughly $45bn and around a dozen lives a year—is modest enough to invite little interest from Congress or the media. That suggests Mr Trump’s strategy is sustainable. - Read More

Donald Trump is doing better on Afghanistan than his ... - The Economist


Monday, August 06, 2018

US cuts Pakistan security funding over terror fears | Arab News

ISLAMABAD: The US Congress has slashed security funding to Pakistan by almost two-thirds under an amended defense budget following criticism of its coalition partner’s failure to tackle terror groups thriving in its porous border region with Afghanistan.

In a $717 billion budget for the coming year, Congress cut funding allocated to Pakistan to fight terrorism from $900 million to $350 million, with some analysts suggesting the figure may be even lower.

Former Professional Staff Member of the US Senate Committee on Armed Services Anish Goel said: “The legislation reduces the amount of funds provided for reimbursement to Pakistan to $150 million. This is a significant reduction from the $700 million authorized through the Coalition Support Fund last year.”

A US Embassy spokesman in Islamabad told Arab News: “The $150 million in defense funding is dedicated to Pakistan’s border security operations and is a clear sign of our commitment to improved security for both Pakistan and Afghanistan. We hope that Pakistan takes the necessary steps to enable the disbursement of this assistance.”

If Pakistan demonstrates its ability to secure the Pakistan-Afghan “borders against the threats posed by transnational terrorism,” it will be eligible for US assistance, the spokesman said.

Under a program to reimburse coalition nations for support provided to US military operations, Pakistan’s fund allocation in 2018 was reduced to $700 million, with half the figure pegged to its action against the deadly Haqqani Network supported by the Afghan Taliban.

In May, the US Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives raised concerns about Pakistan’s commitment to tackle militant groups its border region with Afghanistan and called for drastic cuts to financial relief provided to Islamabad. - Read More

US cuts Pakistan security funding over terror fears | Arab News

House easily passes $717B defense authorization bill

The House on Thursday effortlessly passed its $717 billion defense policy bill for fiscal 2019, with more than 100 Democrats backing the measure alongside Republicans.

The House’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed 351-66, with 131 Democrats siding with 220 Republicans to support the bill. Among those who voted against the bill were seven Republicans.

“The best way to summarize this bill is that it takes the next steps,” Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said on the House floor before the vote.

“The next steps to rebuilding our military and reforming the Pentagon, the next steps towards strengthening our country's national security,” he said.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) also said on the floor that the bill “presents another major step toward rebuilding and reforming our military. ... It starts with readiness.”

“This bill invests in training, this bill invests in equipment, it grows the size of all branches of our military and it prioritizes missile defense in our nuclear deterrent. It’s a very dangerous world and this legislation will help us counter the threats, new or traditional,” Ryan said.

The plan included closing seven of the 28 agencies not directly under military services, but was pulled back slightly after pushback from Democrats and the Pentagon, leaving cuts up to the Pentagon’s chief management officer.

Of the $717 billion authorized, the House NDAA includes $617 billion in base spending, $69 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations war fund and $22 billion for nuclear weapons programs under the Energy Department. - Read More

House easily passes $717B defense authorization bill | TheHill


Saturday, August 04, 2018

U.S.-Taliban Talks: Afghan Government Wasn't In The Room, Crocker Says

The U.S. has reportedly met with Taliban officials to discuss the possibility of peace talks to end the war in Afghanistan. Rachel Martin talks to former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker.

CROCKER: Not at all. What it does is put the Taliban really on a - if not a legal plane with the United States, certainly symbolically. They are talking about the American withdrawal and the circumstances of that withdrawal. We are there at the invitation of the Afghan government. They're not in the room. So if we withdraw, to whom do we hand this over to, the Taliban? That's the symbol we've got out there now. That's what the country is seeing, that the Taliban is their future because that's who the Americans are talking to, not the government in Kabul.

CROCKER: Yes, they did. And President Ghani, I'm sure, said - well, you know, thank you for telling me. Go ahead. But he is in a very, very difficult position right now to see, side-by-side, stories in the media that say U.S. talking to the Taliban, U.S. is contemplating advice to the Afghan government to pull its troops out of rural areas and concentrate on the cities - in effect, to cede the ground.

You know, look. These conflicts only end through negotiation. But who's at the table and the timing is critical. I think the Taliban won this round. They're on a roll. We are ceding ground. The Afghan government is ceding ground. So this is neither the time nor the interlocutors that you would want on the table to look for a negotiated settlement that is going to be good for the government of Afghanistan and for the Afghan people.

CROCKER: That's a great point, Rachel. In a word, no. And that's something else to keep in mind. Whatever comes out of this - again, I expect nothing good - it's going to be a long time in unspooling, in part for the reasons you just said. We and the Afghan government, for example, are making a major point out of empowerment for women and girls, female education. We have urged that women play a larger role in Afghan society, in Afghan governance, in the Afghan economy. Really hard to see how these talks are going to advance that point.

CROCKER: Well, it's pretty hard to build an army when you're in the middle of an insurgency. What the Afghans have going for them is, they are tough; they are resilient; they're committed. The bad news is, of course, that applies to both sides of the line - to the Taliban as well as the government. What this reminds me of more than anything - I'm old enough to remember it - the Paris talks over Vietnam. What those were were the beginning of a long surrender. And that's what I'm worried about now, that simply by getting into the room with us, the Taliban feel they have scored a major political victory. We're there. They're there. The Afghan government is not. I worry that I'm going to see what we saw in Vietnam except with far more grave social consequences. - Read More, NPR

Friday, August 03, 2018

Why some experts are cautiously optimistic about peace talks with the Taliban

The United States has restarted conversations with the Taliban, the hardline Islamist group that America and NATO set out to dislodge more than 16 years ago. It’s part of the Trump administration’s effort to end America’s longest war, which has killed around 2,400 Americans and more than 30,000 Afghan civilians.

It’s still unclear if the new talks will lead to a political resolution; one expert I spoke to put the chances of success at around 20 percent. But others see it as an ambitious and bold move that could potentially lead to some kind of tenuous peace for the country. And the reason for this renewed optimism, surprisingly, has to do with the Taliban itself.

The organization remains one of the most brutal and religiously conservative insurgent groups in the world. But in recent years, it has shown signs of moderate but important change, like adhering to its first ceasefire with Afghan forces in June, and even allowing women and minorities to play a larger role in the organization.

The latest push for talks between the US and the Taliban also stems from the reality on the ground. The Taliban, along with other insurgent groups, keep gaining control or influence over territory and people in Afghanistan. The US-backed Afghan government and troops, meanwhile, continue to lose ground. So any end to the conflict would require Washington and Kabul to strike some accord with the Taliban, although the insurgent group currently only wants to talk to the US first to ensure it leaves Afghanistan.

Experts disagree on whether or not to trust the Taliban as a good-faith negotiator. Still, some in Washington and Kabul consider talking to the Taliban the best and most viable option after nearly two decades of fighting. 

“It’s clear that people are daring to hope [that] a peace process could go somewhere — to a greater degree than it has in many years,” Johnny Walsh, an Afghanistan expert at the US Institute of Peace, told me. - Read More

US-Taliban Afghanistan talks: why some experts are cautiously ... - Vox


Recovering from the Trump foreign policy - Brookings Institution

ith Donald Trump as president, analysis and commentary is often chasing headlines. Whether it is his decision to disinvite the Philadelphia Eagles to the White House, his declaration that he is the law when it comes to the Mueller investigation or the tirade against Canada, it’s hard to avoid head-scratching and headaches while reading the news. Some of this is noise, created by the president to distract his foes, divert popular attention and drum up support. Other presidential pronouncements have important and  immediate policy consequences. But whoever takes his place, whether in 2021 or 2025, will have to manage the fallout from all this chaos and fix his many mistakes.

Some repairs, while extensive, may still be easy. Even if Trump’s successor favors a more traditional foreign policy, however, he or she cannot simply sweep the Trump administration under a rug and resume the previous course. The United States has lost influence with allies and is squandering much of its “soft power” in ways that will make it difficult to regain.

One of the biggest challenges, and one discussed in detail by my Brookings colleague Thomas Wright and other experts, is Trump’s retreat from the world order the United States created and championed after World War II—a retreat also seen in the United Kingdom, Italy and other parts of the world. One can point to many fits and starts, but in general both Republican and Democratic administrations advanced free trade, U.S.-led alliances and international institutions, while Trump has scorned all three.

A successor to Trump can try to renew these commitments but must do so with the world recognizing that a sizeable share of Americans oppose these traditional components of the world order and that a leader championing these Americans might again gain power. In addition, Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal after years of painstaking negotiations shows that the United States will not necessarily honor its commitments: It is an administration that is making a deal apparently. The shadow of the future is far grimmer, as a commitment that binds one administration may no longer bind its successors. - Read More

Recovering from the Trump foreign policy - Brookings Institution

A Trump Foreign Policy - by Dimitri K. Simes

With the right mix of hard and soft power coupled with skillful diplomacy, Trump can still achieve major successes.

FTER A YEAR and a half in office, Donald Trump’s foreign policy appears poised for success, though some major challenges in approach and execution remain. While still a work in progress, the president’s approach already reflects some commendable and much needed changes, genuinely putting America first and making foes and friends alike take American positions more seriously.

America’s international conduct has become noticeably more muscular, relying on a significant increase in the military budget and a demonstrable willingness to use force. This is particularly true in Syria; Trump’s red lines are more credible than Obama’s, and when Trump threatens to use military force, few are ready to gamble that the American president is bluffing.

Indeed, when the president has decided that important U.S. interests are at stake, he has been prepared to go further than his predecessor Barack Obama. Limited but psychologically effective air strikes against Syria, as well as the decision to supply Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank missiles (which Obama avoided due to fears of escalating the conflict there), show that Trump is willing to use military force not only as a last resort, but as a legitimate and essential tool of American foreign policy. This offers the United States an important advantage in dealing with adversaries like Iran and North Korea. As a result, each is less certain that America will give up on its core objectives if it fails to get what it wants through economic and military pressure.

But there is a lot to worry about too. So far, the administration has struggled to complement appropriate pressure with equally creative diplomacy. Moreover, the president and other key players in his administration often act and speaks inconsistently. Notwithstanding a formal National Security Strategy released in December 2017, the administration continues to lack a coherent strategic framework that defines national security priorities. To be more precise, the administration has yet to define American priorities in a serious analytical manner and has acted as if the United States can escape hard choices and the risks of potentially costly unintended consequences.

Paradoxically, while many governments increasingly appear to view the United States as a formidable superpower that they cannot easily cross or ignore, many of the same governments see the administration as erratic, unable to evaluate situations objectively, and prone to personalizing relations with foreign leaders and countries—even in dealing with other major powers. To these governments, the United States seems capricious and offers few tangible incentives for accommodating American preferences. This is an obstacle for Trump in accomplishing his international objectives.

It is fair to give the president credit for delivering, or working to deliver, on many of his electoral promises, something that is reportedly a source of pride for Trump. As a candidate, Donald Trump said that he would take a tougher stance on illegal immigration, demand more beneficial trade arrangements from other nations, downplay the struggle against climate change, and avoid regime change and meddling in the internal politics of other states. - Read More

A Trump Foreign Policy | The National Interest


Wednesday, August 01, 2018

Afghanistan Update: Government 'Lawless, Weak And Dysfunctional'

A U.S. government watchdog says the Afghan government "may be going back to 'business as usual' and 'simply checking the box' when it comes to fighting corruption."

In a report issued Monday, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, recorded instances of corruption in the very institutions put in place to stop it.

SIGAR cited a U.S. Department of Justice finding in March that described the situation in Afghanistan as "consistent with a largely lawless, weak, and dysfunctional government."

SIGAR said "many corruption cases [are] languishing due to the lack of political will—rather than capacity—of the Afghan government."

Congress created SIGAR for the purpose of providing independent and objective oversight of reconstruction projects and activities in Afghanistan. This is its 40th quarterly report.

Inspector General John Sopko reported that the anti-corruption court established by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in May 2016, the Anti-Corruption Justice Center (ACJC), is a point of concern. The report, citing the Justice Dept., says the ACJC "has shown little ability to function as intended" and "more than 100 ACJC warrants remain outstanding."

Individuals ignore warrants, a situation "so severe that it has undermined the fundamental legitimacy and authority of the ACJC," according to the report.

According to SIGAR, the Justice Dept. also found,that the Afghan Ministry of Interior "despite expressing willingness, has not helped the ACJC execute search and arrest warrants."

The report said since November 2015, when SIGAR began receiving "district-control data," government "control and influence over its districts" has declined about 16 percent.

Afghan National Security Forces have also taken a hit, only functioning at 89.3 percent of its goal strength and short-staffed by about 38,000 staff, the report states.

"Fraud, waste, and abuse cannot be tolerated. Corruption cannot be tolerated," Lt. Gen. Austin Miller, who will soon take command of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said in a statement in the SIGAR report. - Read More, NPR

Afghanistan Update: Government 'Lawless, Weak And Dysfunctional'


California's Carr Fire 30 Percent Contained As New Blazes Erupt Elsewhere

As firefighters continued to gain ground on the massive Carr Fire in Northern California and the Ferguson Fire to the south that has threatened Yosemite National Park, new blazes were erupting to threaten homes and lives elsewhere in the state.

North of San Francisco, residents from about 60 homes were evacuated as a fire near the Mendocino National Forest erupted late Tuesday. That fire was only about 40 miles north of twin blazes in Mendocino and Lake counties that took off earlier this week and together pose a threat to some 12,000 homes.

About nine miles northwest of Yuba City, the Butte Fire has grown to more than 1,500 acres and was moving at a "critical" rate of speed, Cal Fire Deputy Chief Scott McLean said, according to The Sacramento Bee.

The newspaper reports that, "Winds from the west are pushing the fire along, sending smoke into Yuba City and Marysville, but by late Tuesday fire officials said the blaze was 40 percent contained."

The high winds and temperatures that helped drive the Carr Fire — the largest of at least 17 major fires that have ravaged California in recent weeks — have eased somewhat, allowing firefighters to create more containment lines, according to Liam Moriarty, a reporter with Jefferson Public Radio. - Read More

California's Carr Fire 30 Percent Contained As New Blazes Erupt Elsewhere


July 30, 2018 Quarterly Report to Congress - Special Inspector ...

SIGAR issues its fortieth Quarterly Report on July 30, 2018. Public Law 110-181 directs SIGAR to submit a quarterly report to Congress. This congressionally mandated report summarizes SIGAR's audits and investigative activities. The report also provides an overview of reconstruction activities in Afghanistan and includes a detailed statement of all obligations, expenditures, and revenues associated with reconstruction - Read More