A bomb exploded by a convoy of the deputy chairman of Pakistan’s Senate on Friday, in the violence-plagued province of Baluchistan, killing at least 10 people, police said according to reuters.com.

The blast occurred the town of Mastung, 50 km (30 miles) from the provincial capital of Quetta. Television footage showed a vehicle mangled by the blast.

Senator Abdul Ghafoor Haideri, the deputy chairman of the upper house of parliament, told Reuters minutes after the blast that he believed he was the target and he had sustained minor injuries.

“My convoy was going to Mastung and there was an explosion. There are many casualties as there were many people in the convoy,” he said by telephone.

Mastung police official Ghazanfar Ali Shah said the convoy appeared to have been hit by a suicide bomber and at least 10 people were killed, including Haideri’s driver.

Separatist militants in Baluchistan have waged a campaign against the central government for decades, demanding a greater share of the gas-rich province’s resources.

Taliban and other Islamist militants also operate in the province, which shares borders with Afghanistan and Iran.

Australia is “open” to NATO’s request to provide more troops to Afghanistan, the country’s prime minister says, as US President Donald Trump considers also sending up to 5000 extra soldiers, like reported by radionz.co.nz

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said today he was considering the request made late last month by NATO’s military authorities, without specifying the details of it.

He did say however, that he was open to the idea.

“We are certainly open to increasing our work there, but we’ve obviously got to look at the commitments of the Australian Defence Force in other parts of the region and indeed in other parts of the world,” Mr Turnbull said.

“It is very important that we continue – we and our other allies in the effort in Afghanistan – continue to work together,” he said.

Australia currently has nearly 300 troops stationed in Afghanistan, training and advising Afghan forces.

A top US intelligence official said on Thursday security in Afghanistan would deteriorate even further without a modest increase in troops from the United States and its allies for the NATO-led force.

Afghan forces being trained by their NATO allies have only tenuous control in Afghanistan almost 16 years into the intractable war against the Taliban, the remnants of al Qaeda, Islamic State and other Islamist groups.

In February the US commander of foreign troops in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, told a congressional hearing he needed several thousand more international troops to break a stalemate with the Taliban.

Reuters reported in late April the Trump administration was carrying out a review of Afghanistan and that conversations were revolving around sending between 3000 and 5000 more US and coalition troops to Afghanistan.

US and NATO allies have since been receiving requests for more troops to boost the Resolute Support mission, which currently deploys 13,450 troops.

Just over half of those are US military personnel training and advising Afghan armed forces to take over Afghanistan’s defence and security, while another 1500 US troops form a counter-terrorism unit mainly targeting the Islamic State militant group and remaining pockets of al Qaeda.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said this week the alliance was considering a request for more troops, although NATO member Germany ruled out sending more of its forces back to Afghanistan.

More than 24,000 people fled their homes as the Philippine military used airstrikes and artillery against Muslim extremists who have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, authorities said Thursday (May 11), like reported by straitstimes.com.

Almost a week of attacks on members of the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) in the strife-torn southern island of Mindanao has displaced residents of six towns, said Jofelle Delicana, spokeswoman for the civil defence office.

About 24,300 villagers were forced to take refuge in schools, makeshift tents or with relatives after the military launched their assault on May 5, she told AFP.

Local army spokesman Captain Arvin Encinas said that reports from civilians and intelligence sources indicate that as many as 31 BIFF guerrillas have been killed including the group’s leader, Commander Ismael Abubakar, also known as “Bungos”, as well as two of his aides.

“We believe they are among the dead considering our information that they were there in the location hit by airstrikes,” he told AFP.

He said however that no bodies had been recovered and that the death toll could not be verified.

“We used all available air assets and artillery assets and armour,” the captain said, declining to give details.

Six Indonesians from ISIS who were training the BIFF in bomb-making were part of the remnants of the group that is being surrounded by the army, he added.

“Our assessment is they have less space to move while we are conducting our airstrikes because all our available troops have been deployed,” Encinas said.

The group of almost 100 BIFF were targeted after they were involved in the planting of make-shift bombs and a number of murders in recent months.

The BIFF split from main Muslim rebel group the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in 2008 after the MILF opened a peace process with the government.

Since then, its leaders have been seen in videos pledging allegiance to the IS movement that has taken control of vast swathes of the Middle East.

Encinas said Bungos had been trying to forge closer connections with IS so he could get more overseas assistance.

While the Philippines is largely Catholic, the southern third is home to a sizable Muslim minority and extremist groups and guerrillas like the BIFF who are fighting for a separate Islamic state.

While groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda went after state targets, the IS has been going after societal ones

A recent commentary in The New York Times titled “The Wrong Enemy in Afghanistan” calls for the US focussing more on a peace deal with the Taliban than being obsessed with the Islamic State in Khorasan, like reported by dailytimes.com.pk

Should the US or the countries in the region — especially Pakistan and Afghanistan make such a distinction? Is fighting the Islamic State in the region a distraction from any other larger and urgent task?

True, Islamic State in the region may be a smaller group when compared to the Taliban. But should the size matter, when fighting a militant group? Does the strength of matter while confronting a virulent ideology that is targeting the fundamental fabric of our society?

A bean-counting approach towards the IS may become counterproductive to the region. Even during its heyday, the al Qaeda and its leadership did not command the majority support in any of those countries where it had a presence. A section in those societies (where al Qaeda was present) may have sympathised with bin Laden’s objectives and even shared his anti-West (more importantly anti-US), but did not provide foot soldiers in huge numbers to fight in the ground. Despite the small presence of South Asians in its fighting force, the al Qaeda did wreck havoc in the region. Given the contemporary reality, size of a militant group or its physical presence does not matter to what it could effect.

While looking at the Islamic State, let us look beyond the actual numbers — in terms of fighters on the ground. Irrespective of the size or the physical presence of its leadership — the harsh reality is the expanding footprints of the Islamic State in the Afghan-Pak region. Given the nebulous nature of its leadership in the region, it is possible, it could spread (if it has not already) to rest of South Asia as well. Recent developments in Bangladesh do highlight this fear.

In terms of ideology, the Islamic State is perhaps the most radical among other militant groups, including al Qaeda and the Taliban. And in terms of target, the Islamic State chooses a softer one — the Shias and Sufis in South Asia. Both make the Islamic State more virulent than any of the other groups that the region has been fighting. While groups like the Taliban and the al Qaeda went after the State targets, the IS has been going after Societal targets. This would deepen the sectarian fault line even further, impinging more on the societal peace. Such soft targeting by the IS also makes it difficult for the State to protect its own people.

The State should go after the Islamic State with full force, for it is important to prevent any new groups from emerging and complicating the existing militant networks. Perhaps, ten years ago, Pakistan made a similar calculation in terms of size against the TTP when it was emerging and did not deal with it effectively. A section did advocate for a long time that the TTP should be dealt with politically. The consequences have been disastrous for the entire region.

In retrospect, perhaps the State would have found it easier to totally crush the TTP then during the early period of Nek Mohammad, instead of striking deals. Perhaps, it was argued that time Nek was a local and a small time militant, and the group did not command any presence outside Waziristan.

In fighting militant groups, do the States have the luxury of deciding a strategy based on the former’s size? Not only the TTP in Pakistan, but also the Islamic State in Iraq started in a small geographic area.

A related question is — should the State also prioritise fighting the militant groups? Should the State follow different strategies — military and political — towards those groups that are undermining the legitimacy and writ of the government and using violence as a strategy?

A section in the region has always been a strong proponent of a ‘political’ strategy vis-à-vis certain militant groups that have been openly using violence as a means. Be it the Taliban in the Afghan-Pak region or the LTTE in Sri Lanka, there were initiatives towards a political dialogue. How successful have these dialogues been in the past? A section also argue, internationally such a strategy has worked elsewhere, for example with the PLO. It is also true, in our own region, there have been peace deals, for example with the Hekmetyar group in Afghanistan. In Nepal, the Maoists after pursuing a violent confrontation decided to come over board and were willing to politically participate in the electoral process.

Let us make a cold calculation on the success and failure stories in our region in terms of politically dealing with an active militant group. Let us not rush towards a political dialogue in the name of a ‘peace process’ or worse in the name of ‘pragmatism’. As a rule, unless the militant groups are defeated militarily or openly willing to take part in the political process without any preconditions, dialogues will only strengthen the former. Half-hearted and premature political process will also negate the military successes in the battlefields and also reduce the morale of the security forces.

Police in Bangladesh raided a militant hideout sparking a clash in which five Islamic militants and a fire fighter were killed in blasts that the militants set off, police said.

Bangladeshi security forces have been hunting for militants, especially members of a group that has pledged allegiance to Islamic State, since an attack on a cafe in the capital, Dhaka, last July in which 22 people were killed, most of them foreigners.

Police and army commandos have killed more than 70 suspected militants and arrested hundreds since then.

In the latest incident, police raided the hideout, about 200 miles (120 km) west of Dhaka, after a tip-off.

The militants threw grenades, wounding two officers, the area’s police station chief, Hipjur Alam Munsi, told Reuters.

The militants, suspected members of a faction of the Islamic-State-linked Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh group, set off explosives, killing themselves and the fire fighter, as police closed in, Munsi said.

Al Qaeda and Islamic State have claimed responsibility for some of other attacks in Bangladesh over the past few years but the government has denied the presence of such groups in the Muslim-majority country of 160 million, blaming domestic militants instead.

During a visit to Denmark on Tuesday, U.S Secretary of Defense James Mattis said in NATO’s fight against Daesh they have noticed the enemy in Afghanistan has lost about two thirds of its strength, like reported by tolonews.com

Speaking at a joint press conference with Danish Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen, after the two chaired a meeting within the coalition against Daesh, Mattis said: “In this past weekend, President (Ashraf) Ghani announced the death of the emir of ISIS Khorasan (Daesh Afghanistan), the ISIS group in Nangarhar there in eastern Afghanistan. In our anti-ISIS campaign we are dealing that group one more significant blow with the loss of their leader.

“This fight will go on, as the minister said. We continue to integrate our military and our non-military efforts. We have to remember that the battlefield that we are fighting on is also a humanitarian field where innocent people live right now, sometimes forced to stay on a battlefield by ISIS,” he said.

According to him, the troops were doing everything possible, “everything humanly possible, to limit the suffering and any casualties among those innocent people.”

He also said they were committed to working together in order to defeat Daesh and that Denmark had always been a stalwart ally of the U.S and the two nations have stood by each other in good and bad times.

Frederiksen meanwhile said that Denmark was considering sending in more soldier to Afghanistan.

“We are open to increasing the number of our forces in Afghanistan if necessary, but we have not yet made the decision,” Frederiksen said the joint press conference after a meeting with Mattis.

“But I can say that we are generally positive about increasing our presence in Afghanistan,” the minister said.

Frederiksen confirmed to Danish news agency Ritzau that Denmark had received a request from the United States of America regarding the increased contribution.

“I have answered that we are looking forward to it,” he was quoted by Ritzau as saying.

“There are problems in Afghanistan, and it is important that we participate,” the minister said.

“So it is quite important that we help stabilize the situation in Afghanistan,” he added.

Denmark has provided military and humanitarian support to Afghanistan since 2002 and currently has about 160 troops and support personnel in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said on Tuesday night in relation to the fight against Daesh that President Donald Trump is intent on destroying the group.

“The one thing is that there is a difference between Afghanistan proper and our effort to defeat ISIS. And that’s one thing he (Trump) is also very clear on in the campaign, and as president, that he is going to do everything he can to fight radical Islamic terrorism, to root out and destroy ISIS.”

He said in reference to the U.S’s new strategy on Afghanistan that “the goal is always going to be to defeat ISIS, which is something he’s been very clear on with the American people from the get-go. But that all being said, let’s be clear, with the exception of the piece that we announced today, that the president announced yesterday, no decision has been made. So let’s not get ahead of what that ultimate policy will be.”

“The U.S. currently has about 8,400 forces in Afghanistan doing a counterterrorism operation, which is Operation Freedom Sentinel, and then the NATO mission, which is to train, advise and assist under Operation Resolute Support. The main objective of us being in Afghanistan, (is to stop the country) from being used as a safe haven for terrorists to attack the United States, and our allies. That is the main objective.”

He stated that Trump is weighing up various options in terms of overhauling the whole strategy.

“There are several things that go into a strategy. And I think the idea of just saying can we throw ‘x’ number at it, is not the way the president is looking at these options. He’s trying to figure out walk back from a goal of eliminating this threat, and then tell me how we get there. As opposed to, tell me how many troops we need and what you’re going to do with them. I think that there have been in the past some instances of just figuring, okay if we add more troops, that will help solve the problem. The president is asking to re-look at the entire strategy and then figure out what the footprint is in a variety of ways to get there.”

This comes after reports emerged last week that the Trump administration is considering sending in addition troops into Afghanistan.

The White House says President Donald Trump wants to make sure that the Taliban group and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorist group are defeated in Afghanistan, like reported by khaama.com.

In response to a question regarding the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, the White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, said “Well, I think number one, he wants to make sure that we defeat ISIS — that is something that is in our national security interests — and to make sure that we protect our people, but does so in a responsible, smart way.”

Spicer further added “I mean, he’s talked about not projecting where he’s going and what he’s going to do to let the enemy know ahead of time, and part of that guidance that his national security team is giving him are different pieces that you’re talking about. “

“How do we achieve those key outcomes? How do we do what’s in the country’s best interest and utilize our military and our treasure to the best of our ability? That is something that we’re continuing to work on and do, and that’s part of what he is getting briefed on and is implementing,” he added.

He did not disclose further information regarding the indications by the officials regarding Pentagon’s plan to send several thousand additional troops to Afghanistan.

However, he said President Trump wants to make sure that we do what we can to win. “And that’s why he charged the generals and other military advisors and national security team to come up with a plan that can get us there,” he said.

Iran’s army chief has issued a stark warning to neighbouring Pakistan saying it will strike bases over the border if Islamabad does not rein in anti-Tehran militant groups, like reported by alaraby.co.uk.

Gen Mohammed Hossein Bagheri accused Pakistan for sheltering anti-Iranian militants during a televised speech, saying Islamabad must tighten border security or Tehran will be forced to respond militarily.

“We expect Pakistani officials to control the borders, arrest the terrorists and shut down their bases,” the Iranian general said according to FARS news agency.

“If the terrorist attacks continue, we will hit their safe havens and cells, wherever they are.”

Bagheri’s comments come after a cross-border clashes with Sunni militant group Jaish al-Adl last left ten Iranian border guards dead.

The group is seeking independence for the Sistan-Baluchestan province in Iran and claimed to have killed the troops using “long-range guns” fired from inside Pakistan.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Jarad Zarif visited Pakistan last week, and reportedly requested that Islamabad tighten security on its border.

The general’s starker warning raises the prospect of a direct confrontation between the two countries.

Relations between Tehran and Islamabad have seen numerous flare-ups in recent years over alleged militant activity in Pakistan.

In 2014, Iran warned Pakistan that it would use military force to retrieve five guards snatched by militants on the border.

A cross-border raid was averted when the group released four of the men but killed one guard.

Last year, Iran claimed to have uncovered a huge “terrorist plot” by Jaish al-Adl.

In 2013, the little-known militant group killed 16 Iranian border guards during another raid.

Pakistan has also seen clashes with neighbouring Afghanistan this week after a border dispute left eight civilians dead.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has a long-running dispute with India over Kashmir, with New Delhi accusing Islamabad of hosting militant that have targeted Indian troops and civilians.

Analysts believe that tensions between the two countries could have also increased due to Iran’s sponsoring of Shia militant groups from Pakistan.

The Zainabiyoon Brigade is operated by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards has been helping bolster regime forces in Syria, along with other Tehran-backed Shia militias from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon.

Islamic insurgents in Thailand have detonated a car bomb outside a busy shopping center in the south of the country, ripping the building apart and injuring dozens of people.

A military spokesman says insurgents first set off firecrackers as a distraction before triggering the car bomb Tuesday at the mall’s entrance in the city of Pattani.

A list of injured posted at Pattani Hospital’s emergency room indicated 37 people were wounded.

Muslim separatists have waged a bloody insurgency for years in Thailand’s three southernmost provinces, the only ones with Muslim majorities in the predominantly Buddhist country.

Indonesia is to disband an Islamist group that calls for a state based on sharia law, citing concern it undermines a secular state ideology in the world’s biggest Muslim-majority country, officials said on Monday like reported by reuters.com .

Chief security minister Wiranto said a government panel had evaluated Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia (HTI), which seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate, and decided to take legal steps to disband it.

The group is the Indonesian branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a global Islamist party that has been banned in some Arab and Central Asian countries.

“The activities of HTI strongly indicate that they are in conflict with the Pancasila and the constitution,” said Wiranto, who uses only one name.

Pancasila is Indonesia’s state ideology, which includes belief in god, the unity of the country, social justice and democracy, and which enshrines religious diversity in an officially secular system.

“Their activities create tensions in society, threaten security and order, and unity,” Wiranto added.

He denied that the decision meant the government was opposed to Islamic organisations.

The ban comes amid concern over the rising influence of Islamist groups in Indonesia, which is home to sizeable communities of Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and people who adhere to traditional beliefs.

A spokeswoman for HTI, Iffa Nur, urged the government not to disband the group, saying every citizen had a right to organise and HTI was just delivering Islamic teaching.

Nur said there should have been dialogue before a legal process was started and her group was monitoring the situation.

Islamist vigilante groups, banned under the authoritarian regime of former President Suharto, which ended in 1998, have expanded in recent years.

Though usually small and on the fringes of society, such groups are seen as a threat to Indonesia’s tradition of pluralism and moderate Islam.

One such group, the Islamic Defenders Forum (FPI), shot to prominence during a recent election for governor in the capital, Jakarta. The group was instrumental in mobilizing hundreds of thousands of Muslims against the Christian incumbent over accusations he insulted Islam.

HTI was among the groups that supported the rallies.

Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama lost the election to a Muslim rival, who was endorsed, among others, by the FPI.

Purnama is on trial for blasphemy after being accused of insulting the Koran. He has denied wrongdoing.

The charge stems from his criticism of rival politicians for citing the Koran to argue that Muslims should not vote for non-Muslims.

The trial is widely seen as a test of Indonesia’s religious tolerance.

A verdict is due on Tuesday.