WASHINGTON — Democrats on a House committee are pressuring the White House to release a wide array of documents about the security clearances granted to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top aide.

In a letter Wednesday, 18 members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said they have “serious concerns” about how the White House is handling classified information and who is being allowed access to such sensitive material.

The letter, citing press reports, singles out Kushner for failing to disclose numerous contacts with foreign officials on his security clearance questionnaire. It also questions why the White House allowed Flynn to have access to classified information after learning that he had misled administration officials about the content of conversations with a Russian diplomat.

Asked by reporters whether the White House will suspend Kushner’s security clearance or hand over the documents Democrats have requested, White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters responded, “That’s something I’ll have to get back to you on.”

Kushner’s attorney, Jamie Gorelick, said she hadn’t seen the letter and was out of the country. Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, declined to comment.

Flynn, who was later fired over the misleading statements, is currently the subject of congressional probes and the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion with Trump associates.

Kushner, who is currently in the Middle East attempting to broker a peace deal between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, has said through his lawyers that he is willing to talk to federal and congressional investigators about his foreign contacts and his work on the Trump campaign.

Gorelick has previously acknowledged that Kushner failed to disclose some of his contacts with Russian government officials while he was filling out his security clearance questionnaire. Gorelick said in April that the omissions were an “administrative error,” adding that “there was no intent to obscure any foreign meetings, including those with Russia.”

Among those meetings that he omitted was a December meeting with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., and another with the head of a Russian bank.

During the Kislyak meeting, which took place at Trump Tower in New York last December, Kushner proposed a secret back channel between the Kremlin and the Trump transition team, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

In his talks with Kislyak, Kushner broached the idea of a line of communication with Russia to promote sensitive discussions exploring the new administration’s possible options in Syria. The goal, according to the person familiar with the meeting, was to connect Flynn, who was Trump’s top national security aide at the time, with Russian military leaders. The Washington Post, which first reported the session, said Flynn also attended the meeting.

Kushner also separately met during the transition period with Sergey Gorkov, the top executive of Russia’s state-supported VEB bank. The White House said Kushner was acting in his capacity as a transition official at the time. The bank has said that the meeting was part of a new investment strategy that was being unveiled to leading world financial institutions as well as “the head of the Kushner Companies.”

In their letter, the Democrats on the oversight committee request that the White House provide any documents or communications regarding these meetings or other contacts Kushner had with Russian government officials and businesses as well as any documents or communications detailing the classified information that Kushner and Flynn had access to since December.

They also request documents related to any White House official who has been granted access to classified information while under investigation by law enforcement and any White House official who resigned or was terminated due to a criminal investigation or an inability to obtain a security clearance.

The Democrats’ letter was copied to the committee’s newly installed Republican chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. But it’s unclear if the letter will have much success in prying loose documents from the White House. So far, the Trump administration has largely ignored requests for documents from Democratic lawmakers, only turning over documents when Republicans join in the request.

___

Associated Press writers Jill Colvin and Ken Thomas contributed to this report.

___

Submit a confidential tip to The Associated Press: https://www.ap.org/tips

___

Follow Chad Day on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChadSDay

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

BROOKHAVEN, Ga. — President Trump’s hopes of steadying his presidency and his agenda on Capitol Hill were given a lift Tuesday when a Republican won a special congressional election in the Atlanta suburbs.

Republican Karen Handel defeated Democrat Jon Ossoff in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, retaining a seat that has been in GOP hands since 1979 after a grueling, four-month campaign that earned the distinction of being the most expensive House race in history.

Handel won by almost 11,000 votes and by more than four percentage points, and Ossoff failed to reach the 48 percent mark that he topped in the initial round of voting in April.

Handel’s win will bring fresh attention to a beleaguered Democratic Party that has suffered a string of defeats in special elections this year despite an angry and engaged base of voters who dislike Trump.

It may also embolden Republicans in Washington to press ahead on an ambitious policy agenda that has yielded few legislative victories since Trump’s inauguration in January. Most immediately, the election result could bring momentum to Senate Republicans’ efforts this week to craft their version of a major revision to the Affordable Care Act.

“We need to finish the drill on health care,” Handel said during her victory speech here Tuesday. Chants of “Trump! Trump! Trump!” erupted before her.

Handel’s victory, however, revealed as much about Trump’s lingering problems among Republicans as it did the challenges facing Democrats. In a ruby-red district that her Republican predecessor won in November by 23 points, Handel struggled with Trump’s looming presence over the race. She won not with an embrace of the president but by barely mentioning his name.

“You showed the world that in places where no one even thought it was possible to fight, we could fight,” Ossoff, dressed in a black suit and black tie, told supporters Tuesday.

[Ossoff chose civility and it didn’t work. How do Democrats beat Trump?]

Handel, who will be the first Republican woman elected to Congress from Georgia, repeatedly ducked opportunities to echo Trump’s populist roar and instead presented a classic Republican case to voters, all while deflecting the barrage of questions about Trump’s latest tweets or his handling of investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

The Republican unease evident in the district could replay across the country next year, when both major parties are bracing for a bruising season of midterm elections at an uncertain national moment .

Back in Washington, party leaders — and Trump — paid close attention to the race. Inside the West Wing, Trump and his advisers were briefed regularly on Handel’s standing in private polls and Republican turnout, according to a White House official. In particular, the official added, strategist Stephen K. Bannon and chief of staff Reince Priebus were involved.

“KAREN HANDEL FOR Congress,” Trump tweeted as day broke Tuesday, touting the Republican candidate and former Georgia secretary of state. “She will fight for lower taxes, great health care strong security — a hard worker who will never give up. VOTE TODAY!”

Handel and Ossoff vied to fill the seat vacated by Tom Price, who held it from 2005 until he joined Trump’s Cabinet this year as health and human services secretary. On April 18, Ossoff had nearly topped the 50 percent threshold that would have given him an outright victory in an 18-candidate primary field. Falling just short, he found himself in a runoff against Handel.

Ossoff, 30, a former congressional staffer, raised more than $23 million, built a devoted grass-roots following and courted Republicans by bemoaning “wasteful” spending.

In another Tuesday tweet, Trump took a swipe at Ossoff’s centrist positioning and dismissed him as a liberal who “wants to raise your taxes to the highest level and is weak on crime and security, doesn’t even live in district.” Ossoff lives just outside the district with his fiancee.

A record turnout was expected Tuesday: About 120,000 people cast early ballots, according to Georgia officials — nearly a quarter of registered voters here.

As Handel’s lead climbed late Tuesday, a senior White House official sent The Washington Post a text message: “They haven’t figured out how to beat Trump.”

For Democrats, Ossoff’s loss was demoralizing, coming after months of bitter infighting in the wake of Trump’s victory.

His defeat is also likely to lead to more criticism from the wing of liberal activists who want a more confrontational style embodied by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). They have already complained about the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s willingness to support a more moderate candidate in Ossoff, while more progressive candidates in special elections in Montana and Kansas this year were left largely in the lurch.

Moreover, Ossoff’s loss raises real concerns about the continued potency of Republican attacks against Democrats by tying them to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The anti-Ossoff campaign seemed to veer from issue to issue given the week, but the one constant thread over the last four months has been linking him to Pelosi.

According to one Republican involved in the effort, the Democratic leader had a name identification of 98 percent among voters in the Georgia district, and her disapproval ratings were 35 percentage points higher than her approval numbers.

Still, some Democrats said Ossoff’s competitive bid in Atlanta’s Republican suburbs could be a positive harbinger of next year, when they must win 24 GOP-held seats to reclaim the House majority.

“This is not the outcome any of us were hoping for, but this is the beginning of something much bigger than us,” Ossoff said during his concession speech. “Rather than demonizing each other, we find common ground and move forward.”

Democrats are likely to continue to view districts such as Georgia’s 6th as their roadmap to taking back the House — swing, suburban districts with well-educated populations and also more diverse electorates than in the poorer, rural districts that once served as the party’s foundation.

“We’re still going to be here,” Bill Atherton, 41, who works for a non-profit trying to transition low-income families into self sufficiency and attended Ossoff’s election-night party. “Now we believe we have a strong enough movement, not only to flip this district but inspire others.”

As the national political and media world focused heavily on the Georgia race, an underfunded, overlooked Democrat, Archie Parnell, also a first-time candidate, almost pulled off a huge upset in the South Carolina seat vacated by Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director. Parnell lost by about 2,800 votes, a little more than 3 percentage points, after party leaders decided to devote all their attention in the run-up to Tuesday’s elections to the Ossoff-Handel race.

Of the four special elections prompted by Trump’s Cabinet selections, the DCCC identified the Georgia seat as vulnerable to the sort of political climate they expect to target next year. There are dozens of suburban districts with similar demographic makeup currently held by Republicans.

Despite the contest’s national sheen and implications, many voters here said they made their decision based less on Trump and more on how they view the two candidates, whose salvos have inundated televisions in a clash that has grown bitter and tense.

Jennifer Wilson, 52, a school counselor who went door to door for Ossoff on the eve of the election, said Ossoff’s age, as well as GOP attacks on his residency, were hurdles. “Some people say, ‘Oh, he’s only 30.’ But I tell them that Jon is someone who understands the area,” she said. “He grew up here and wants what they want: to bring high-tech and bio-tech jobs to our community.”

The Ossoff approach was to toe the middle of the road politically. His calls for civility, at a time of a nontraditional brand of politics from Trump, served as an indirect contrast to the president — a polite rebuke while trying not to offend those who voted for him.

“There is a great hunger here in Georgia, across the political spectrum, for leadership that is focused on civility, that is humble, that’s committed to delivering results instead of notching partisan wins or winning the day on Twitter,” he said Monday in an interview.

Handel supporters seemed genuinely puzzled by the attention the 6th District received, given its decades of support for Republican candidates, going back to Newt Gingrich, who began a long stint in 1978 when he won it while Jimmy Carter was in the White House.

Some, including Gingrich, largely rejected the suggestion that the contest was a referendum on Trump’s presidency.

“This is a referendum on if enough money can invent a person to win a special election,” the former House speaker said, taking a swipe at Ossoff as he watched returns on Tuesday. “He also backed off the whole model of a referendum on Trump. He figured out it wasn’t working.”

The national significance of the contest brought forth a flood of advertising and organization. Spending in the race by the campaigns and outside groups topped $50 million. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC affiliated with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), spent more than $7 million on its campaign against Ossoff and launched a field program.

Carolyn D. Meadows, a member of the board of the National Rifle Association, has lived in Cobb County her entire life and has been active in conservative politics since she was a “Goldwater Girl” during the 1964 election.

“No, we’re not a swing state, and we’re not a swing district,” said Meadows, who brought her granddaughter to Handel’s final event.

And on Tuesday, she was proven right, as Handel reasserted the political lines in suburban Atlanta in the age of Trump.

Kane reported from Sandy Springs, Ga., and Viebeck reported from Washington. Michelle Baruchman, Sean Sullivan and Karen Tumulty in Washington contributed to this report.

Read more at PowerPost

The Supreme Court just made a major decision without actually issuing a decision. On Monday morning, the justices announced that they would take up a case out of Wisconsin that could result in a ruling on the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering.

Democrats should be cautiously very happy with this.

No, it doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court will suddenly strike down the practice altogether, but it does mean that the court could deliver what would be basically an unprecedented rebuke of a practice that has, according to a recent study, prevented Democrats from controlling the U.S. House for potentially four of the past six years.

The Post’s Supreme Court guru Robert Barnes explains the significance here:

The justices regularly are called to invalidate state electoral maps that have been illegally drawn to reduce the influence of racial minorities by depressing the impact of their votes.

But the Supreme Court has never found a plan unconstitutional because of partisan gerrymandering. If it does, it would have a revolutionary impact on the reapportionment that comes after the 2020 election and could come at the expense of Republicans, who control the process in the majority of states.

The court accepted a case from Wisconsin, where a divided panel of three federal judges last year ruled last year that the state’s Republican leadership in 2011 pushed through a plan so partisan that it violated the Constitution’s First Amendment and equal rights protections.

In other words, the fact that the justices are even going to hear this case suggests that it could result in a ruling on the constitutionality question. And since the court has never struck down a map for partisan gerrymandering, that ruling could move the needle in a way we have never seen before.

Basically any movement in that needle would be in Democrats’ favor. In recent years, Republicans have enjoyed a very large edge when it comes to control of the redistricting process throughout the United States. The GOP won a huge wave election in the 2010 contests, which happened to come just before the once-per-decade census and before state legislatures in most states across the country redrew their congressional and state legislative maps.

Republicans used this edge to draw very GOP-friendly maps in big swing states and even some blue-leaning states like Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. And in large part because of those state legislative maps, they retain historic control through today, including complete control of state government in 25 out of 50 states, compared to just seven for Democrats. And that, in turn, would mean they get to draw many of these maps again. It’s a vicious cycle for Democrats.

The Brennan Center tried to answer this question a few weeks back, as it happens. Using a number of methods, they estimated the number of seats Republicans and Democrats have gained in each state compared to what you might expect with a politically neutral map. (A “politically neutral map” is a very hypothetical concept that is open to interpretation, it should be noted.)

[Republican redistricting is taking a beating in the courts (again)]

Basically, it took the actual GOP share of seats in states that were big enough to allow for gerrymandering to shift seats, and compared it to various definitions of what you might expect under a neutral map. One method is the “efficiency gap,” which compares how many seats the GOP controls to the raw vote totals. In Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, this method suggests the GOP gained multiple seats via its redistricting advantage. Other methods showed similar gains in similar states. Democrats gained seats in Maryland and Massachusetts, where they were in control, but their overall gains were nowhere close to the GOP’s.

Brennan Center for Justice

When the Republican-led Senate Rules Committee briefly flirted with the idea of restricting television interviews in the hallways of the Capitol last week, it became only the most obvious manifestation of how the party’s leaders were handling the development of a bill to overhaul Obamacare: out of the public eye.

While that effort was quickly sidelined after some outcry, the Republican leadership in the Senate was otherwise unfazed in its push to craft a bill that would expose its members to as little negative public attention as possible. No repeat of the town hall meetings that drew angry constituents who yelled at House Republicans and, they clearly hope, no weeks and weeks of swamped office phone lines.

In an article for the Monkey Cage, George Washington University’s Sarah Binder explained the four ways in which the Senate effort was unusually secretive. Sure, members of Congress would always rather pass legislation without dealing with negative criticism, but rarely have they gone so dark on such a big effort.

[Are Republicans leading the most secretive health-care bill process ever?]

The question that arises, though, is what Democrats could actually do about it. Binder told me that the answer was probably a simple one.

Nothing.

“I have a hard time seeing a real avenue for successful obstruction by the Democrats,” Binder said. The situation is unusual enough that making hard and fast predictions is tricky, she said, but “Republicans have been so aggressive on procedure here that I’d expect them to … get this through without any heed of what the Democrats were raising.”

In particular, Binder addressed a proposal outlined in a series of tweets last week by Ezra Levin, a former deputy policy director for House Democrats. Levin suggested that the Democrats could introduce an almost infinite number of amendments that would choke the Senate calendar indefinitely until they got what they wanted.

[Liberal groups are teaming up to pressure GOP lawmakers on health care over summer recess]

The plan hinges on the way in which the bill is being moved through the Senate. To avoid the need for Democratic votes — which the Republican majority wouldn’t get — the Obamacare replacement is being advanced using what’s known as the reconciliation process. That process involves a special set of rules that are meant to fast-track debate over the budget, but, given that it also means legislation can avoid a filibuster in the Senate, it has also been used to pass controversial bills. (Several fixes essential to the passage of Obamacare were moved using the reconciliation process, for example.)

Those rules, defined by law, include allowing only 20 hours for debate but it also includes a process called “vote-a-rama,” in which amendments may be proposed and must be voted on before the final passage of the bill. That’s where Levin’s idea comes in: He proposed introducing tens of thousands of amendments that would need to be voted on before the Senate’s bill could be passed. In theory, Levin figured, Democrats could introduce enough amendments to shut down the Senate for a year.

Binder disagrees.

[Mitch McConnell on the health-care legislative process, 2010 vs. 2017]

“In reality, that’s not going to happen,” she said. What was more likely, she said, is that someone would make a point of order that the Democrats were being “dilatory” — that is, slowing down the process unnecessarily. The presiding officer — the Republican senator on duty to manage floor debate — would be asked to rule on whether that was the case and would likely agree. Democrats could appeal the decision, but a majority vote would end the process.

It’s not just partisan politics that would lead to that outcome, either, Binder said. If the presiding officer were to appeal to the Senate parliamentarian — the resident expert on the rules of order — the recommendation would likely be the same. “The parliamentarian’s job is really to make the Budget Act work, and everybody knows that the Budget Act has time limits in it,” she said. An infinite vote-a-rama might be in keeping with the letter of the law, but not, importantly, the spirit.

“The weight of the law here is toward no filibusters,” she said. But she also noted that there was no “hard and fast precedent” for such a scenario since, normally, the two parties agree in advance on how long the process will extend.

Asked if the Democrats had any other recourse, Binder was skeptical.

“I don’t really see an escape valve for Democrats to delay it,” she said. The only question is whether the Senate bill — once it’s finalized — meets the rules for reconciliation and if the House accepts it as written. If it’s not eligible for reconciliation or if the House doesn’t want to agree to the Senate bill as written, then more traditional minority obstruction efforts might kick in. If, however, the Senate Republicans pass a measure that the House Republicans agree to in whole cloth, that’s it.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is no doubt very well aware of his options. He’s betting that drafting the bill in secret and pushing it through the Senate with limited debate will give his caucus enough cover to vote yes — and that the House will agree to the bill. If he’s right, that means that only one group could stand in his way: Republicans on Capitol Hill, by defecting in the Senate or objecting in the House. The Democrats can probably only watch.

ISLAMABAD — As American military officials complete plans that are likely to send several thousand additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, a flurry of setbacks in the war have underscored both the imperative of action and the pitfalls of various approaches.

Further complicating the picture are questions about how to deal with neighboring Pakistan and balance separate fights against Afghan and foreign-based insurgents.

In the latest attack Sunday morning, Taliban fighters stormed a police base in southeastern Paktia province after detonating a suicide car bomb outside. At least five members of security forces and several civilians were killed, officials said. The attack came one day after an Afghan army commando shot and wounded seven U.S. troops inside an army base in northern Balkh province.

Almost every week seems to bring alarming and embarrassing developments that cast doubt on the ability of Afghan security forces to protect the public and make headway against the domestic Taliban insurgency and the more ruthless Islamic State.

From the powerful truck bomb that decimated a high-security district of Kabul on May 31, killing more than 150 people and sparking days of protests, to the Saturday shooting at the same base in Balkh where Taliban infiltrators killed more than 140 Afghan soldiers April 21, a spate of attacks from various sources is inflicting blow after blow on the nation’s battered psyche.

The Saturday shooting was one of several recent insider attacks that are raising new concerns about poor vetting and conflicting loyalties, even among the elite Afghan special operations forces that the U.S. military sees as crucial to boosting the war effort. Experts said such attacks would be likely to increase if more U.S. troops arrive. 

In eastern Nangahar province, where Afghan and U.S. special operations forces have been waging a joint campaign against Islamic State fighters, another Afghan army commando — reportedly a Taliban sympathizer or member — fatally shot three U.S. troops June 10. 

U.S. military officials have claimed to be making steady progress in that fight. In April, the United States dropped its largest non-nuclear bomb on a complex of caves and tunnels used by Islamic State fighters, reportedly killing 92. 

But last week, in an equally dramatic response, hundreds of Islamic State fighters captured Tora Bora, the underground labyrinth that was once the redoubt of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Underscoring the confused battlefield situation, it was the Taliban that Islamic State forces fought and drove out of the area. 

U.S. military officials have expressed growing concern about the war and urged that several thousand more U.S. troops be sent to shore up Afghan forces. Fewer than half of the country’s 407 districts are under full government control, and Taliban forces have come close to occupying several provincial capitals. 

But no new U.S. policy or troop numbers have yet been announced, reportedly because of disagreements within the Trump administration. They include arguments over whether sending more troops would make a decisive difference, how much NATO allies should contribute and whether the United States should pressure Pakistan to rein in Taliban insurgents believed to be operating from safe havens there. 

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who was recently given authority by President Trump to set troop levels in the Afghan conflict, said last week that the United States is “not winning” in Afghanistan and that the Pentagon will present its strategy plan next month. “We will correct this as soon as possible,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Both Afghan and American analysts, however, doubt that adding several thousand more troops to the 8,400 currently here will make much difference in a war that at one point involved 140,000 U.S. and NATO forces. They stress that U.S. policy also needs a strong political component to strengthen the government and push for reconciliation.

“It’s clear that the U.S. cannot win this war militarily,” said Michael Kugelman at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. “The Taliban insurgency seems to strengthen by the day, the Islamic State remains resilient, public anger is building” and “Afghan troops are turning on their American trainers.”

He said the new U.S. policy “can’t come soon enough, but deploying a few thousand new troops will do little to shift the calculus on the ground.” 

Afghan analysts and officials argue that the top U.S. priority should be pressing Pakistan to cease harboring anti-Afghan militants. A spokesman for the defense ministry said Sunday that the U.S. government needs to put “real pressure on Pakistan to make it drop its support for terrorists.”

Atiqullah Amarkhel, a retired Afghan army general, said that the government is facing an agile guerrilla enemy and that United States needs to focus on cutting its “lines of supply and support and training” in Pakistan. Sending more U.S. troops, he added, will “give more ammunition” for insurgents to attract recruits among young and jobless Afghans.   

Mattis said the Pentagon plans to take a “regional approach” to the war and address “where this enemy is fighting from,” which is “not just Afghanistan.” Afghan officials have been more blunt, accusing Pakistan of harboring a violent Taliban branch called the Haqqani Network.

At a conference this month, President Ashraf Ghani charged that Pakistan is waging an “undeclared war of aggression” on Afghanistan. Pakistan’s military commanders bristled at the “unwarranted accusations” and said Afghans should “look inward” to solve their insurgent problems.

Some members of Congress and U.S. think tanks have urged the Trump administration to crack down heavily on Pakistan, a former Cold War ally and a major recipient of U.S. aid. Clearly worried, Pakistani officials have denounced recent terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and have strongly denied backing the Haqqani Network.

But other voices have argued against putting excess pressure on Pakistan, saying it could risk political instability and religious unrest. Pakistan has suffered from years of militant attacks, most recently a spate of suicide bombings at Sufi shrines and other civilian targets in February.

 Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told a congressional hearing last week that the United States has “very complex relations” with Pakistan, but Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) insisted that “if we don’t succeed in Afghanistan,” it is because of Pakistan’s military-run intelligence service.

On the problem of insider attacks, Amarkhel said it is easy for anti-government sympathizers to “penetrate the ranks” of the security forces, because poor security and vetting make it difficult to assess recruits.

“It is hard to find the enemy within yourself,” he said, adding that the Afghan military leadership is weak and politicized. “The recent insider attacks are not the first ones and will not be the last.”

U.S. watchdog agencies have noted that corruption and nepotism within the Afghan military leadership have undermined the capacity of its forces, but changes in top officials appear to have made little difference. After the April 21 attack on the base in Balkh, Ghani dismissed both the defense and interior ministers. 

Salahuddin reported from Kabul. Sharif Walid in Kabul and Haq Nawaz Khan and Shaiq Hussain in Islamabad contributed to this report. 

Read more:

Taliban attacks key Afghan police base, killing at least five officers

A U.S. troop increase would aim to double the size of Afghanistan’s special operations unit

Massive blast in the heart of Kabul’s diplomatic quarter kills at least 80

Today’s coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news