Soldiers who have been severely disfigured in Iraq and Afghanistan may benefit from a $3.4 million contract granted by the Pentagon to Brigham and Women’s Hospital to perform face transplants. To qualify, soldiers must be missing at least one-quarter of their face and be unable to get significant help from conventional plastic surgery techniques.
A 35-member medical team at Brigham and Women’s Hospital performed the second face transplant in the United States in April 2009. The recipient was James Maki, who had been severely disfigured in a subway accident. The first face transplant performed in the United States occurred in December 2008 at Cleveland Clinic. The patient was Connie Culp, who underwent the 22-hour surgery over two days. Ms. Culp’s husband shot her in the face in 2004 during a murder-suicide attempt, shattering her nose, cheek, and jaw.
The contract awarded to Brigham is the first time money has been given out under a Department of Defense initiative to rapidly introduce innovative medical techniques into mainstream practice. A smaller award was given to the University of Pittsburgh for facial reconstruction surgery.
The need for face transplants and facial reconstruction have become more necessary since the starts of the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. Compared with previous conflicts in which there were three wounded soldiers for every death, today there are nine wounded for every fatality, Dr. Joseph Rosen, a plastic surgery at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire told the Boston Globe. Along with the increasing numbers of wounded veterans are more severe injuries, many of them caused by improvised explosive devices.
Doctors at Brigham are developing the face transplant program, including recruitment information for veterans. The plan is to make the information available on websites for veterans and to also contact soldiers through a government registry of the wounded. Face transplant surgery costs approximately $250,000 to $300,000 and is not covered by insurance.
In addition to performing the face transplants, the Department of Defense is also interested in learning more about the use of immunosuppressant drugs, which transplant patients need to take to prevent rejection of the donor tissue. Transplant recipients need to take these drugs and manage their side effects for the rest of their lives.
Over the next 18 months, the Department of Defense hopes Brigham physicians will complete face transplants on six to eight soldiers. This represents a small percentage of the estimated 200 veterans that may qualify for the procedure.
Dr. Rosen told the Boston Globe that “It’s not enough just to keep soldiers alive.” Face transplants for those who have been severely disfigured “would be a big step toward them leading more useful and productive lives.”
Source:emaxhealth.com/
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Seabee battalions to deploy to Afghanistan after holidays
Two battalions of Navy Seabees will deploy to Afghanistan in coming months as part of the 30,000 additional U.S. forces deploying to the region.
NMCB 133 from Gulfport and NMCB 4, based in Port Hueneme, Calif., will deploy in March.
Each battallion contains about 580 Seabees.
The buildup is part of the buildup of additional troops in support of the President Barack Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan. The Seabees’ mission is to help provide infrastructure such as bases, berthing facilities, roads and airfields for the increasing number of U.S. forces in country.
Although the deployment schedule is a March date, the battalions could leave as early as January. As part of their normal rotation cycle, NMCB 4 and NMCB 133 were originally scheduled for deployment in February. NMCB 133 was scheduled to go to Afghanistan, and NMCB 4 was originally scheduled to deploy to the Pacific Region.
“Since World War II, the Seabees have supported the Marine Corps in every major conflict. This is our legacy, and we are proud to be part of this important mission,“ said Rear Adm. Mark Handley, commander of the First Naval Construction Division, in a press release.
Read more about this story in Wednesday’s Sun Herald.
Source:sunherald.com/
NMCB 133 from Gulfport and NMCB 4, based in Port Hueneme, Calif., will deploy in March.
Each battallion contains about 580 Seabees.
The buildup is part of the buildup of additional troops in support of the President Barack Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan. The Seabees’ mission is to help provide infrastructure such as bases, berthing facilities, roads and airfields for the increasing number of U.S. forces in country.
Although the deployment schedule is a March date, the battalions could leave as early as January. As part of their normal rotation cycle, NMCB 4 and NMCB 133 were originally scheduled for deployment in February. NMCB 133 was scheduled to go to Afghanistan, and NMCB 4 was originally scheduled to deploy to the Pacific Region.
“Since World War II, the Seabees have supported the Marine Corps in every major conflict. This is our legacy, and we are proud to be part of this important mission,“ said Rear Adm. Mark Handley, commander of the First Naval Construction Division, in a press release.
Read more about this story in Wednesday’s Sun Herald.
Source:sunherald.com/
Soldiers' bodies brought home
The body of a soldier from Kent who was killed in Afghanistan has been returned to the UK.
Rifleman James Brown, 18, from Orpington, died when two suicide bombers on a motorbike blew themselves up outside Sangin in Helmand Province on December 15.
Lance Corporal David Kirkness, 24, from West Yorkshire, also died. Both were from 3rd Battalion The Rifles.
They were hailed as heroes for preventing mass carnage in a bazaar packed with Afghan civilians.
Also flown home was the body of Corporal Simon Hornby, 29, of 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, who was killed by an improvised explosive device while on foot patrol in the Nad-e-Ali area of Helmand on Saturday.
The soldiers' bodies were flown into RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire before a private ceremony for their families.
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iY4AHV4k9GXRGzqf1I7ppJ7tjNDw
Japanese PM Asks for Iran's Help in Rebuilding Afghanistan
TEHRAN (FNA)- Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama lauded Iran's regional role and clout, and asked for Tehran's assistance with Tokyo's aid plans to Afghan reconstruction.
"Rendering help to Afghan reconstruction is Japan's strategy and Tokyo needs the Islamic Republic of Iran's help to play a constructive role in the region," Hatoyama said in a meeting in Tokyo on Tuesday with the visiting Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Saeed Jalili.
He praised Iran-Japan age-old and intimate ties, and expressed the hope that the two countries' cooperation in different fields would further expand.
The Japanese premier viewed Jalili's upcoming visit to Kashiwazaki nuclear plant and the city of Hiroshima as important parts of his itinerary, saying that Japan enjoys an advanced technology in grounds of nuclear plants safety and has valuable experiences in the construction of such nuclear facilities.
Jalili, who is also Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, arrived in Tokyo on Sunday to meet with senior Japanese officials.
Jalili's 4-day visit to Japan came at an official invitation by the Tokyo officials.
During the meeting, Jalili reminded the different fields available for the two countries' mutual, regional and international cooperation, and said that joint efforts by the two countries for nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation as well as Iran-Tokyo cooperation within the framework of Tehran's package of nuclear and security proposals to the West could serve as the most important fields of interaction between the two sides.
He also underlined that military approaches will not necessarily resolve current problems in the region, and noted, "Deployment of new forces in Afghanistan means repeating the experience of past failures."
Source:english.farsnews.com/
Chicago soldier dies in Afghanistan
CHICAGO - A 27-year-old U.S. Army infantryman from Chicago has been killed in an explosion in Afghanistan.
Albert Ware's father called his late son "a hero." Ware was killed by an improvised explosive device on Friday and had been on his second tour of duty. Ware had three children and also is survived by his wife, mother and sister.
Ware was born in Liberia and came to Chicago at age 12. He served in the National Guard before joining the Army and had hoped to become a U.S. Army Ranger.
Ware was from Chicago's Pullman neighborhood.
Source:chicagotribune.com/
New British 'friendly fire' death in Afghanistan probed
A second British soldier has died after being wounded in a suspected "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence has said.
The soldier, from 3rd Battalion The Rifles, has not been named but his family has been told.
He died on Tuesday, having been wounded in a fire fight near Sangin, central Helmand Province, on Monday.
A soldier killed in a separate suspected friendly fire incident has been named as L/Cpl Michael Pritchard.
L/Cpl Pritchard, 22, a Kent-born Royal Military Policeman who lived in Eastbourne, Sussex, died as a result of "small arms fire" - also near Sangin - on Sunday.
Both deaths are under investigation and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) says no firm conclusions will be drawn until after the men's inquests.
Some 105 British soldiers have died in Afghanistan this year, bringing the total killed since operations began in 2001 to 242.
The MoD said "initial reports" suggested the latest death "may have resulted from a friendly fire incident".
Task Force Helmand spokesman, Lt Col David Wakefield, said the soldier's "courage and his sacrifice will not be forgotten".
The BBC's Adam Mynott said that to have two friendly fire deaths on consecutive nights was unusual.
However, he said Sangin was one of the "hottest" areas of conflict between British forces and the Taliban.
"In these shooting incidents where there's a lot of gunfire, it's very hard to tell what's happening," he added.
L/Cpl Pritchard was born in Maidstone, Kent, and joined the Royal Military Police (RMP) in 2007. He had been in Afghanistan since October.
His family said: "With great sadness we say goodbye to our beloved son, a lover of life who has lived life to the full and has brought great joy to all those who are lucky enough to know him.
"A light that shines brightly, our precious son, brother, grandson, boyfriend and special friend to all, we are very proud of you in all that you have done and achieved and you will always be in our hearts now and ever more."
'Unbearable grief'
The soldier's commanding officer, Lt Col Debbie Poneskis, described him as "everything you would want in a military policeman".
"He was a professional and robust soldier and one who was both physically and morally courageous," she said, adding that he was "a cheeky chap, whose laughter was infectious".
"L/Cpl Pritchard's death has hit us as a regiment very hard, at a time when we thought we had already suffered unbearable pain and grief."
Several Royal Military Policemen have been killed in recent months.
They include Acting Cpl Steven Boote and Cpl Nicholas Webster-Smith, who were shot dead by a rogue Afghan policeman in November, and Sgt Robert Loughram-Dickson, who died in a gun battle in the same month.
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said he was "deeply saddened" at L/Cpl Pritchard's death.
"He was hard-working and dependable and was showing great promise as a junior non-commissioned officer," he added.
Source:bbc.co.uk
Military police dismiss allegations of abuse by Canadian troops in Afghanistan
OTTAWA — Military police have dismissed three more claims alleging abuse of detainees by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
In a year-end report released today, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service says three allegations of detainee abuse filed in 2009 were unfounded.
The report says investigators determined that soldiers acted appropriately toward the detainees.
The investigation is completely separate from the recent political furor over the abuse of detainees by Afghan authorities and why Canada continued to hand over detainees in 2006-07 despite reports of torture.
Since 2006, the military police have looked into a dozen claims of abuse by Canadian soldiers and found all but one were unfounded.
A single allegation, filed last year, is still being investigated.
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jpSphhIDuRKy1OhSBRm2VYw7X2qg
In a year-end report released today, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service says three allegations of detainee abuse filed in 2009 were unfounded.
The report says investigators determined that soldiers acted appropriately toward the detainees.
The investigation is completely separate from the recent political furor over the abuse of detainees by Afghan authorities and why Canada continued to hand over detainees in 2006-07 despite reports of torture.
Since 2006, the military police have looked into a dozen claims of abuse by Canadian soldiers and found all but one were unfounded.
A single allegation, filed last year, is still being investigated.
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jpSphhIDuRKy1OhSBRm2VYw7X2qg
Monday, December 21, 2009
Inconclusive end to APTTA talks
Islamabad – The US-sponsored talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan to negotiate a new Afghanistan Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement (APTTA) seeking transit facility for Indian goods up to Afghanistan through Pakistan’s land routes ended inconclusively here on Monday.
Senior Joint Secretary Commerce, Shahid Bashir, led the Pakistani team while the deputy minister for commerce and industries Adib Farhadi led the Afghan team.
Both sides agreed to firm up recommendations in the light of their three days closed-door deliberations for the consideration of their respective governments.
Although there was no official statement issued about the meeting, well-placed sources told TheNation that Kabul and Islamabad would hold a crucial meeting later this month, ostensibly under US pressure, to finally decide the fate of the US proposal seeking transit facility for India.
Sources were of the view that the US was struggling to secure this deal for India, its new strategic ally, ahead of initiating any serious diplomatic effort for resumption of the suspended composite dialogue process between the two South Asian nuclear neighbours.
Some knowledgeable sources were of the view that the proposed meeting, to be held in Islamabad, was being arranged despite Islamabad having already rejected the US sponsored proposal on the plea that this matter should be left for Pakistan and India in their deliberations through the composite dialogue.
Sources said that Pakistan had conveyed its serious concerns over giving India such a specific concession after its evident attempts to destabilise Pakistan by using the Afghan soil.
Sources said that the Pakistani side sought more time to thoroughly analyse the pros and cons of the proposed draft agreement because of the multidimensional threat being faced by Pakistan.
They were of the view that apart from the Indian threat through Afghanistan, Pakistan was simultaneously facing serious threats from Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as well as the pro-Indian elements of erstwhile Northern Alliance of Afghanistan.
Source:nation.com.pk/
Colleagues may have shot UK soldier in Afghanistan
A British soldier who died in southern Afghanistan may have been killed by one of his own colleagues, the defence ministry in London said.
The unnamed soldier, from the Royal Military Police, was killed by small arms fire in central Helmand province on Sunday.
"There is a possibility that the latest death in Afghanistan was caused as a result of friendly fire," a defence ministry spokesman said in a statement. "No firm conclusion will be reached until after the coroner's inquest."
Britain has more than 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, based mainly in the south, as part of a NATO-led force fighting Taliban militants.
A total of 241 British soldiers have died in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion in 2001.
No more details of the shooting were available. The dead man's family has asked officials not to name him for 24 hours.
Earlier this month, US-led coalition forces killed six Afghan policemen and one civilian in a case of mistaken identity while targeting a Taliban commander in southern Afghanistan.
This year has been the deadliest for British and US forces in Afghanistan. More than 80 percent of casualties among foreign forces there in 2009 have been British or American.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has repeatedly been forced to defend his decision to keep troops in Afghanistan.
Polls suggest Brown will lose an election due by next June, and he has tried to portray his help for the NATO force as crucial in preventing militants from launching attacks on British soil.
Source:abc.net.au/
Prayers for Afghanistan
President Barack Obama's decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan deserves the support and prayers of the American people.
Under the best of conditions, Afghanistan will be another Iraq. Under the worst, it could be another Vietnam. One wonders what would have happened if President George W. Bush had continued to pound the hills of Afghanistan near Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was believed to be pinned down. Instead, Bush pulled back and headed for Iraq, and now Obama is forced to choose among a series of bad options left behind by Bush.
Obama applied a process to make his decision with deliberation and thought. We don't really understand Afghan tribal culture enough to know if this plan will work, but by sending more troops into Afghanistan, we are at least in the country that hatched the plan to attack America on 9/11. Al-Qaida and the Taliban are linked. They have the ability to establish a haven in the hills and then wait for another chance to attack America. Obama wants to stop that from happening.
Bennion Spencer
Riverton
Source:sltrib.com/
Illinois U.S. Senate race: Democratic candidates torn over President Barack Obama's Afghanistan strategy
The Democratic contenders for the nomination to fill Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat all pledge to strongly back their home-state president's agenda, but they are sharply divided when it comes to his strategy for the war in Afghanistan.
Responding to a Tribune survey on foreign affairs, Republicans seeking the Feb. 2 Senate nomination generally say they believe Obama did not go far enough in promising to increase U.S. military strength in Afghanistan.
This month, Obama announced plans to deploy an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, along with setting July 2011 for the start of a military withdrawal. Obama's strategy has caused divisions among Democrats, some of whom want to see the president announce a quick end to the war.
"It is time to take care of America again and time to bring our troops home," said Democratic Senate contender Cheryle Jackson, a former president of the Chicago Urban League. "Until we stop spending hundreds of billions on wars, we will not have the focus or money to solve the challenges we face at home."
Jackson's call for an end to the war was joined by Democratic contender Robert Marshall. But Democrat David Hoffman, a former Chicago inspector general, was skeptical of Obama's troop buildup.
"My concern is that the mission of securing all of Afghanistan is very broad, expands our core mission of protecting us from al-Qaida, is a potentially open-ended mission, and is likely to be very costly in lives and dollars," Hoffman said.
But first-term state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, a Democrat, said he fully supported Obama's strategy for Afghanistan and indicated that those who oppose it are engaging in wishful thinking.
"In a perfect world, our troops would be at home with their families and this war would be over," he said. "But we are not dealing with a perfect world. We are dealing with perhaps the most complex, dangerous region in the world ... where nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of fanatics and terrorists."
Chicago attorney Jacob Meister, another Democratic contender, said he was satisfied that Obama "has clearly defined the mission's objectives, set a timetable for completion and outlined a responsible exit strategy."
Among Republicans, North Shore U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, who served a tour as a naval reservist in Kandahar, and contenders Patrick Hughes and Kathleen Thomas said that while they backed Obama's strategy, even more military personnel should be sent in line with the 44,000-troop surge recommended by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
Hughes, a Hinsdale developer, said Obama's decision not to fully comply with the general's request "raises the question of his confidence in Gen. McChrystal's vision and strategy."
At the same time, Hughes and Republican contender John Arrington of Harvey criticized Obama for setting a date for withdrawal. Arrington said the July 2011 date, "gives the Taliban time to wreak havoc on the country prior to the date so our troops may be required to stay longer."
Another Republican contender, former judge Donald Lowery, of Golconda, said any increase in troop strength should be "accompanied by a lifting of the restrictions on the rules of engagement and pursuit."
All of the Democratic contenders indicated varying levels of support for reviewing or reopening U.S. trade pacts, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, on issues involving labor, health and environmental concerns.
Republicans, however, were split on the issue of trade.
Kirk warned that with Illinois' high unemployment, "we should not risk a trade war with our state's top export markets."
Hughes and Thomas also agreed that reopening trade pacts represented a form of unnecessary protectionism.
But Arrington said "free trade must include 'fair' free trade" and proposed renegotiating agreements to protect American manufacturing jobs.
Lowery said "all trade agreements should be periodically evaluated."
Source:chicagotribune.com/
Afghanistan's Elections: How Dr. House Can help
The fictional Dr. House is no diplomat, as I would judge from watching this brilliant TV series. But he does have one saying that is useful for diplomats to learn. Whenever there are two diagnoses and no way to judge between them, he takes the one which means the patient has a chance. The other option might be more likely, but it also would mean there is nothing he can do to stop the patient dying.
Likewise, in foreign policy. Let's say there are two diagnoses for Afghanistan -- one means it has a chance if we do things right. The other means that there's no hope whatever we do -- withdrawal means a moral defeat but so, ultimately, does staying put. The arguments for hopelessness are set out eloquently here.
Being trained as a diplomat, I'm instinctively drawn to that first diagnosis. In general, I am unashamed to be proposing practical solutions based on the assumption that the situation is not hopeless -- and based on where we are, not where we might want to be or where we might have been.
The Afghan elections might seem a backward-looking, hopeless kind of issue. Because of the UN internal division between Kai Eide and Peter Galbraith being still in the news, though, it's impossible for me to forget it. (I am also reminded of it every time I look at my bank balance, since my unhappiness with that process and its aftermath led me to resign from the UN before I started to receive a stipend from Harvard. And as the poet Juvenal said, integrity is all very well, but it doesn't pay your bills.)
I am happy to pass over the Eide-Galbraith story, which was an unpleasant enough experience at the time without my re-living it here. But the fact that Galbraith has been the only person to have lost his job as a result of the fraud in those elections -- this is not about past history. It's about over $200 million in donor funds that were, in part, misused. This was an Afghan election, an exercise which was rightly led by Afghans (even if the Electoral Commission's head was appointed by one of the candidates, which was always an obvious flaw in the process). But it was also a donor-funded project, and donors have the right -- even the duty -- to verify that taxpayers' money was well spent.
It's also about $100 million or more in donor funds that may be required to fund parliamentary elections next year, in the same circumstances as the 2009 elections. Here's a piece suggesting there are four scenarios for those elections. Having lived through the 2009 experience, I am personally a big advocate of postponing the parliamentary ones. The problems in these elections that have just passed were not just that the IEC was mistrusted by the opposition, nor that over a million votes appear to have been fraudulent, but that many people were afraid to vote. In Zabul province, a remote and dangerous area in the south of Afghanistan, the official turnout was less than 8% of the estimated population, even assuming all those votes were valid. In a constituency-based election this will give ludicrously unrepresentative results. The tiny minority of people who live in the safer areas of Zabul will decide who represents Zabul in Parliament.
But unless action is taken to address the fraud then the problems next year will be even worse than they were this year, because the stakes are very high for some powerful local players in Afghanistan who want to win seats in Parliament. Violence, intimidation and ballot-stuffing are very likely. Even postponement will just defer these issues.
Finally, it's about the relationship of the international community with the Karzai government. It's right for the Afghans to run their own democratic process, but the international community cannot be seen entirely to have backed off in the face of pressure. If a new UN chief comes in to replace Kai Eide in March next year, and immediately tries to put pressure on President Karzai for reforms to the electoral system, then that new UN chief will risk being shut out by Karzai altogether. It has happened before.
The patient is not dead. But it does need urgent treatment. Now that President Karzai is back in the saddle and has chosen his new Ministers, can there please be some pressure for electoral reform: postponing next year's elections, yes, but also investigating and punishing past abuses. And an inventive new look at how to solve the problem of disenfranchisement in the country's insecure areas -- on which I want to write more in a future post.
Source:huffingtonpost.com/
Likewise, in foreign policy. Let's say there are two diagnoses for Afghanistan -- one means it has a chance if we do things right. The other means that there's no hope whatever we do -- withdrawal means a moral defeat but so, ultimately, does staying put. The arguments for hopelessness are set out eloquently here.
Being trained as a diplomat, I'm instinctively drawn to that first diagnosis. In general, I am unashamed to be proposing practical solutions based on the assumption that the situation is not hopeless -- and based on where we are, not where we might want to be or where we might have been.
The Afghan elections might seem a backward-looking, hopeless kind of issue. Because of the UN internal division between Kai Eide and Peter Galbraith being still in the news, though, it's impossible for me to forget it. (I am also reminded of it every time I look at my bank balance, since my unhappiness with that process and its aftermath led me to resign from the UN before I started to receive a stipend from Harvard. And as the poet Juvenal said, integrity is all very well, but it doesn't pay your bills.)
I am happy to pass over the Eide-Galbraith story, which was an unpleasant enough experience at the time without my re-living it here. But the fact that Galbraith has been the only person to have lost his job as a result of the fraud in those elections -- this is not about past history. It's about over $200 million in donor funds that were, in part, misused. This was an Afghan election, an exercise which was rightly led by Afghans (even if the Electoral Commission's head was appointed by one of the candidates, which was always an obvious flaw in the process). But it was also a donor-funded project, and donors have the right -- even the duty -- to verify that taxpayers' money was well spent.
It's also about $100 million or more in donor funds that may be required to fund parliamentary elections next year, in the same circumstances as the 2009 elections. Here's a piece suggesting there are four scenarios for those elections. Having lived through the 2009 experience, I am personally a big advocate of postponing the parliamentary ones. The problems in these elections that have just passed were not just that the IEC was mistrusted by the opposition, nor that over a million votes appear to have been fraudulent, but that many people were afraid to vote. In Zabul province, a remote and dangerous area in the south of Afghanistan, the official turnout was less than 8% of the estimated population, even assuming all those votes were valid. In a constituency-based election this will give ludicrously unrepresentative results. The tiny minority of people who live in the safer areas of Zabul will decide who represents Zabul in Parliament.
But unless action is taken to address the fraud then the problems next year will be even worse than they were this year, because the stakes are very high for some powerful local players in Afghanistan who want to win seats in Parliament. Violence, intimidation and ballot-stuffing are very likely. Even postponement will just defer these issues.
Finally, it's about the relationship of the international community with the Karzai government. It's right for the Afghans to run their own democratic process, but the international community cannot be seen entirely to have backed off in the face of pressure. If a new UN chief comes in to replace Kai Eide in March next year, and immediately tries to put pressure on President Karzai for reforms to the electoral system, then that new UN chief will risk being shut out by Karzai altogether. It has happened before.
The patient is not dead. But it does need urgent treatment. Now that President Karzai is back in the saddle and has chosen his new Ministers, can there please be some pressure for electoral reform: postponing next year's elections, yes, but also investigating and punishing past abuses. And an inventive new look at how to solve the problem of disenfranchisement in the country's insecure areas -- on which I want to write more in a future post.
Source:huffingtonpost.com/
Afghanistan strategy right: Brown
Gordon Brown insists that he has "absolutely no doubt" that Britain is pursuing the right strategy in Afghanistan.
In an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service, the Prime Minister acknowledged it had been a difficult year for British troops fighting the Taliban.
But he insisted that UK forces needed to be in the country to prevent the return of terrorism to the streets of Britain.
"I have got absolutely no doubt that we are taking the right decisions for our country," he said.
"The very presence of our forces in Afghanistan, taking on the Taliban and preventing the return of al Qaida, has a direct link to the safety and security of people in our streets and in our neighbourhoods in Britain today.
"Every time I think we have taken the right decision about what our objectives have got to be. We have got to protect the safety of British citizens."
Mr Brown rejected the idea that security could be achieved by withdrawing the troops and pursuing a "Fortress Britain" strategy.
He said that the UK and its allies remained committed to building up the Afghan forces so they could take over responsibility for security, allowing the international forces to return home.
"If you are trying to deal with a terrorist threat that operates from Pakistan and has links to Afghanistan, you have got to deal with it where the epicentre of global terrorism is. So I think we have made the right decisions all along on this," he said.
"We have been in Afghanistan longer than the Second World War, longer than the First World War, so this is a difficult enterprise, it has taken a long time, but we have a strategy."
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gEYKmx8SYROpXW3RE4Tv7iCNZLGA
US wrongly considers Taliban
PESHAWAR: Rejecting as baseless the US allegations about the presence of Afghan Taliban in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a militant commander said they did not need to flee to the neighbouring country when Taliban controlled major parts of Afghanistan.
Mullah Sangeen, a key commander of Afghan Taliban, claimed there was no truth in the US charges as Taliban were holding 80 per cent of territory in Afghanistan.In his video message which the Taliban commander claimed was recorded in one of his camps in Paktika province, he said the Haqqani Network was active and based in Afghanistan.
Mulla Sangeen is associated with the Haqqani Network, a strong Taliban group operating in Khost, Paktia, Paktika, Logar, and Wardak provinces of Afghanistan as well as the capital Kabul.
The network led by Sirajuddin Haqqani, the elder son of veteran Afghan Mujahideen leader Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani, has nominated Mulla Sangeen as the shadow governor of Paktika province.
He said by pressing the Pakistan government to launch military operation in North Waziristan, the US was in fact trying to weaken the country. He said the US was making all-out efforts to pit Pakistan’s armed forces and people against each other.
Mulla Sangeen, who was declared dead twice by the US and its allies in Afghanistan, said the Taliban had become a strong force and were now ruling most of the country with support from the Afghan people.
“The US knows that we are here in Afghanistan and are fighting against them. The US always levels such allegations whenever it suffers losses at our hands,” he stressed.He said the US and its allies had invaded their country with a claim to make it prosperous and developed.
“Instead, they turned Afghanistan into ruins. Thousands of Afghans were killed and their houses bombarded in the name of war on terrorism. The US still does not understand the complexity of the situation. It wrongly considers the Taliban are furthering somebody else’s agenda. Now is the time for the US to understand that we are Afghans and are fighting for the freedom of our homeland,” the Afghan commander maintained.
Regarding reports of US-Taliban talks, Mulla Sangeen termed this baseless, saying they don’t want talks with the occupying forces when they had ruined their country, filled jails with innocent Afghans and made thousands of Afghan children orphans and women widows.
He said the Taliban had drawn up counter-plans and were waiting for arrival of fresh 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan to give them a tough time. “With an increase in the number of their troops, they would suffer more casualties,” he warned.
Mulla Sangeen said the Haqqani Network had inflicted heavy loses on the US and its allies in Afghanistan. “This is the reason the US is putting pressure on Pakistan to launch military operation in North Waziristan. At a time when Pakistan is supporting the US in its war against terror and US drones are flying over North Waziristan round the clock, no sane person would like to live in Waziristan,” Mulla Sangeen explained.
Source:thenews.com.pk/
Mullah Sangeen, a key commander of Afghan Taliban, claimed there was no truth in the US charges as Taliban were holding 80 per cent of territory in Afghanistan.In his video message which the Taliban commander claimed was recorded in one of his camps in Paktika province, he said the Haqqani Network was active and based in Afghanistan.
Mulla Sangeen is associated with the Haqqani Network, a strong Taliban group operating in Khost, Paktia, Paktika, Logar, and Wardak provinces of Afghanistan as well as the capital Kabul.
The network led by Sirajuddin Haqqani, the elder son of veteran Afghan Mujahideen leader Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani, has nominated Mulla Sangeen as the shadow governor of Paktika province.
He said by pressing the Pakistan government to launch military operation in North Waziristan, the US was in fact trying to weaken the country. He said the US was making all-out efforts to pit Pakistan’s armed forces and people against each other.
Mulla Sangeen, who was declared dead twice by the US and its allies in Afghanistan, said the Taliban had become a strong force and were now ruling most of the country with support from the Afghan people.
“The US knows that we are here in Afghanistan and are fighting against them. The US always levels such allegations whenever it suffers losses at our hands,” he stressed.He said the US and its allies had invaded their country with a claim to make it prosperous and developed.
“Instead, they turned Afghanistan into ruins. Thousands of Afghans were killed and their houses bombarded in the name of war on terrorism. The US still does not understand the complexity of the situation. It wrongly considers the Taliban are furthering somebody else’s agenda. Now is the time for the US to understand that we are Afghans and are fighting for the freedom of our homeland,” the Afghan commander maintained.
Regarding reports of US-Taliban talks, Mulla Sangeen termed this baseless, saying they don’t want talks with the occupying forces when they had ruined their country, filled jails with innocent Afghans and made thousands of Afghan children orphans and women widows.
He said the Taliban had drawn up counter-plans and were waiting for arrival of fresh 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan to give them a tough time. “With an increase in the number of their troops, they would suffer more casualties,” he warned.
Mulla Sangeen said the Haqqani Network had inflicted heavy loses on the US and its allies in Afghanistan. “This is the reason the US is putting pressure on Pakistan to launch military operation in North Waziristan. At a time when Pakistan is supporting the US in its war against terror and US drones are flying over North Waziristan round the clock, no sane person would like to live in Waziristan,” Mulla Sangeen explained.
Source:thenews.com.pk/
As deadline approaches, Obama speeds up Guantánamo Bay closure
The Obama administration announced Tuesday it wants to buy the Thomson Correctional Center, 50 miles northeast of Davenport, Iowa, and move 1,600 to 2,000 federal prisoners there, along with a “limited number” of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Newscom
Washington
The Obama administration is accelerating its efforts to close down the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, with the Justice Department’s announcement Sunday of a dozen more prisoner transfers to three foreign countries.
The announcement, following news last week of plans to transfer some Guantánamo prisoners to a facility in Illinois, suggests the Obama administration is moving quickly in several directions to shutter the much-maligned facility as close as possible to Mr. Obama’s own deadline of Jan. 22, 2010. The different approaches include trial for some detainees in federal court, detention of others on US soil, and transfer of still more to other countries.
The president acknowledges he is now unlikely to meet his Jan. 22 deadline, which corresponds with the completion of his first year in office. With just under 200 detainees remaining at Guantánamo, many analysts say a plan that seemed doable a year ago is bumping up against significant national-security considerations.
“This is a place where national security concerns run right up against political commitments made by the president in the campaign,” says Charles Dunbar, a professor of international relations at Boston University who earlier served as a US ambassador to Yemen and as chargé d’affaires in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Difficult dilemma
Mr. Dunbar says Obama inherited “an abomination” in the Guantánamo facility, which has been widely criticized in the US and abroad for holding prisoners without any charges or trial date. But he adds that the prospect of releasing detainees hardened by up to seven years of imprisonment poses a dilemma that won't be easy to solve.
Six of the 12 detainees whose release was announced Sunday will return to Yemen – a prospect Dunbar says does not fill him with confidence. “I hope they’ve made some serious judgments as to what these people are like and what they are likely to do upon return, because I can’t imagine there will be any serious effort to lock them up in Yemen,” he says.
Nearly half the remaining 198 detainees in Guantánamo are from Yemen, suggesting that country – the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden – will play a critical role in Obama’s plans to close down the prison.
Of the remaining six detainees whose transfer was announced Sunday, four are to be returned to Afghanistan, while two will be sent to Somaliland, an enclave inside conflict-torn Somalia. The transfers to Afghanistan raised fresh concerns about the conditions repatriated detainees will return to. Some may be treated well, but others may not, Dunbar says.
Transfer plans criticized
The announcement of the 12 new transfers was received with criticism, as was the plan unveiled last week for transferring detainees to an Illinois facility.
Amnesty International criticized the plan to transfer detainees to the US as merely “changing the Zip Code of Guantánamo,” while some Republican members of Congress assailed the plan for potentially offering civilian guarantees to wartime detainees.
“Once on US soil, terrorists can argue for additional rights that may make it harder for prosecutors to obtain a conviction,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R) of Texas during a congressional hearing earlier this month on issue.
Others blame the “rush” to transfer detainees on Obama’s decision to close Guantánamo before the new administration knew how it would be done.
“What we are seeing now is a desperate effort to do something with these guys, but it all stems from the president preemptively closing off his options with his promise to close Guantánamo,” says Ralph Peters, a former Army intelligence officer with experience in the Middle East.
Obama’s critics from the left say the administration is perpetuating Bush’s system of indefinite detention by simply transferring them to Illinois.
But Mr. Peters says opening up the possibility of trials in US civilian courts means “a new type of combatant in a new form of warfare” will get access to rights imagined for either civilians or for 20th-century state-to-state warfare, he says.
Few combatants will be converted to the values of universal human rights by a civilian US trial, he adds. “The most just trial we can do is not going to cause a single terrorist to lay down his arms.”
Source:csmonitor.com/
Obama must address Pakistan’s concerns: experts
* Maleeha Lodhi says Pak-US relationship will run into problems if Washington fails to dispel Islamabad’s concerns about new Afghan strategy
* Ahmed Rashid says US needs to articulate a political strategy that includes India and Pakistan
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama must complement his Afghan security strategy with a political plan and address Pakistan’s concerns, particularly vis-Ã -vis India, both in the immediate and the post-US troop pullout perspectives, top experts said while discussing imperatives of an effective way forward.
Sharing their evaluation of the new US plan with the Council on Foreign Relations, analysts also cautioned against any unilateral moves that may spell further difficulties for Islamabad as it struggles with consequences of the eight-year old Afghan war.
Under the revamped strategy Obama unveiled early this month, Afghanistan will see a surge of 30,000 American and 7000 NATO troops in the coming months to contain a Taliban insurgency. The summer of 2011 has been set as the milestone when the international forces will start handing over control to Afghan forces and begin the withdrawal process.
Current scholar at Woodrow Wilson Centre and former ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi, observed that reliance on military has meant that Obama’s plan is accompanied by near silence on a political strategy.
“This assumes that a military solution can be successfully applied to Afghanistan, without addressing the political causes of the growing insurgency, especially Pashtun alienation,” said Dr Lodhi
“Military escalation in Afghanistan and the expansion of aerial strikes in Pakistan is dangerous for Pakistan, which is already confronted with mounting security challenges, a consequence, not a cause, of the insurgency in Afghanistan,” she said.
She was referring to a wave of retaliatory bombings Pakistan is facing in the wake of its two major anti-militant operations in tribal areas this year. Obama has offered Pakistan an economic and strategic partnership but wants Islamabad to spread the anti-militant campaign to the North Waziristan tribal area along the Afghan border.
Essential Partnership: “President Obama has described the partnership with Pakistan as being “inextricably linked” to success in Afghanistan. Unless this critical partner’s doubts and concerns about the new plan are dispelled and Washington is prepared to modify its strategy accordingly, the relationship will only run into more problems,” said Dr Lodhi.
Strategy: Ahmed Rashid, a noted author and journalist stressed that “the US needs to articulate a political strategy that draws India and Pakistan in with its plans and, despite Indian objections, puts pressure on New Delhi to be more accommodating toward Pakistan.”
At the same time, the US should bolster support for the elected government in Pakistan, he said.
Washington Atlantic Council’s South Asian Director Shuja Nawaz said that Pakistan could play a key role in helping fracture the Afghan Taliban alliance by persuading the Haqqani group to join the government in Kabul or send surrogates instead. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has already been reported to be willing to strike a deal with Karzai, said Nawaz. Today, the allies need to build the willing support of Pakistan and other regional players to help Afghanistan stand on its own feet. If they do not complete the job they began in Afghanistan, the world will be left less safe than it was when they went into the region in 2001.
“Unless there is some behind-the-scene understanding on this count, Pakistan may not be able to live up to Obama’s expectations. Ideally, India and Pakistan should join hands to stabilise Afghanistan, but someone needs to facilitate that kind of an arrangement. Obama has the stature, potential, and vision to play that role,” said Nawaz. app
Source:dailytimes.com.pk/
* Ahmed Rashid says US needs to articulate a political strategy that includes India and Pakistan
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama must complement his Afghan security strategy with a political plan and address Pakistan’s concerns, particularly vis-Ã -vis India, both in the immediate and the post-US troop pullout perspectives, top experts said while discussing imperatives of an effective way forward.
Sharing their evaluation of the new US plan with the Council on Foreign Relations, analysts also cautioned against any unilateral moves that may spell further difficulties for Islamabad as it struggles with consequences of the eight-year old Afghan war.
Under the revamped strategy Obama unveiled early this month, Afghanistan will see a surge of 30,000 American and 7000 NATO troops in the coming months to contain a Taliban insurgency. The summer of 2011 has been set as the milestone when the international forces will start handing over control to Afghan forces and begin the withdrawal process.
Current scholar at Woodrow Wilson Centre and former ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi, observed that reliance on military has meant that Obama’s plan is accompanied by near silence on a political strategy.
“This assumes that a military solution can be successfully applied to Afghanistan, without addressing the political causes of the growing insurgency, especially Pashtun alienation,” said Dr Lodhi
“Military escalation in Afghanistan and the expansion of aerial strikes in Pakistan is dangerous for Pakistan, which is already confronted with mounting security challenges, a consequence, not a cause, of the insurgency in Afghanistan,” she said.
She was referring to a wave of retaliatory bombings Pakistan is facing in the wake of its two major anti-militant operations in tribal areas this year. Obama has offered Pakistan an economic and strategic partnership but wants Islamabad to spread the anti-militant campaign to the North Waziristan tribal area along the Afghan border.
Essential Partnership: “President Obama has described the partnership with Pakistan as being “inextricably linked” to success in Afghanistan. Unless this critical partner’s doubts and concerns about the new plan are dispelled and Washington is prepared to modify its strategy accordingly, the relationship will only run into more problems,” said Dr Lodhi.
Strategy: Ahmed Rashid, a noted author and journalist stressed that “the US needs to articulate a political strategy that draws India and Pakistan in with its plans and, despite Indian objections, puts pressure on New Delhi to be more accommodating toward Pakistan.”
At the same time, the US should bolster support for the elected government in Pakistan, he said.
Washington Atlantic Council’s South Asian Director Shuja Nawaz said that Pakistan could play a key role in helping fracture the Afghan Taliban alliance by persuading the Haqqani group to join the government in Kabul or send surrogates instead. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has already been reported to be willing to strike a deal with Karzai, said Nawaz. Today, the allies need to build the willing support of Pakistan and other regional players to help Afghanistan stand on its own feet. If they do not complete the job they began in Afghanistan, the world will be left less safe than it was when they went into the region in 2001.
“Unless there is some behind-the-scene understanding on this count, Pakistan may not be able to live up to Obama’s expectations. Ideally, India and Pakistan should join hands to stabilise Afghanistan, but someone needs to facilitate that kind of an arrangement. Obama has the stature, potential, and vision to play that role,” said Nawaz. app
Source:dailytimes.com.pk/
Mullen releases goals for Afghanistan, U.S. force in 2010
Posted December 21st, 2009 by Megan McCloskey in Stripes Central
Traveling in Afghanistan last week, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke often about the ticking clock to get the job done there.
But laying out his objectives for 2010, Adm. Mike Mullen only hints at the challenge presented by the 18-month window before troops will start to withdraw from the country.
In the memo released today, reference to the time frame is brief: "The President's strategy sets us on an urgent course in the region," and "our main effort now must be to push forces into the theater as quickly as possible - including shifting the balance of enablers from Iraq."
Not surprisingly, Mullen writes that "Afghanistan has deteriorated in the last year" and Pakistan needs to continue progress with its internal security. He also pointed to Iran as a critical threat, saying force must be an option there.
The six-page memo, which can be read here, also focuses on the health of the force. The mounting deficit will require difficult choices, but "we must guard against growing hollow," he writes.
Although Defense Secretary Robert Gates has consistently admonished the military for being preoccupied with possible future threats, Mullen writes he is worried the force won't be ready for a different kind of war.
"The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will end, and we must think today about how the U.S. military will need to adapt to future threats."
The highlights:
"Combat leaders in all theaters and at all levels must continue to be both creative and efficient in force employment. How force is used often matters more than how much we have."
He said he expects commanders "to consistently make choices, however painful, that fully support the fight."
"My engagements with Pakistan have convinced me of the importance of a long-term U.S. commitment. To achieve our strategic goals we must deliver robust civilian and military programs to the government of Pakistan."
He said there is a reason for optimism in Iraq, but "drawing down must be closely managed. Lingering tensions could flash."
"We will not see marked improvements in the ground force dwell time until 2011."
"I remain concerned that the pace of operations prevents us from training for the entire range of war and erodes our ability to counter future threats."
"We must put more resources - intellectual, money and people - into accelerating development of our cyber capabilities and integrating them into our daily operations. Impeded progress here is a serious risk in our national security posture."
Repeating a refrain he has said often in the last six months, he wrote that the military has "not yet done enough" in "research and care for the unique wounds of our current wars." He called for accelerated efforts. "To understand the way forward, we will conduct an independent assessment of the progress - and setbacks - in the care of our warriors over the last two years."
Referring to climate change and competition for resources, he said: "We do not yet understand the military implications of the changing global environment, and must examine them closely to be ready."
"We must rethink what deterrence means where the familiar problems are coupled with transnational, non-state and proliferation threats."
Source:blogs.stripes.com/
US military deaths in Afghanistan region at 857
As of Monday, Dec. 21, 2009, at least 857 members of the U.S. military had died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan as a result of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to the Defense Department. The department last updated its figures Monday at 10 a.m. EDT.
Of those, the military reports 662 were killed by hostile action.
Outside the Afghan region, the Defense Department reports 71 more members of the U.S. military died in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Of those, four were the result of hostile action. The military lists these other locations as Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba; Djibouti; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Jordan; Kenya; Kyrgyzstan; Philippines; Seychelles; Sudan; Tajikistan; Turkey; and Yemen.
There were also four CIA officer deaths and one military civilian death.
___
The latest deaths reported by the military:
_ A soldier was killed Friday by a roadside explosive in southern Afghanistan.
___
The latest identifications reported by the military:
_ No new identifications reported.
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jmVICVPpmVGLrJ2f3c53jVXJy9vQD9CO29E81
Obama signs $636.3 billion defense-spending bill
POOL / GETTY IMAGES
President Obama poses for a photo during Monday's visit to the Boys & Girls Club of Washington. He read "Polar Express" to the kids and passed out cookies.
The day in D.C.
Contracts scrutinized: President Obama on Monday touted the federal government's efforts to become more efficient, highlighting a report by the Office of Management and Budget that shows that agencies have identified more than $19 billion in contract savings for fiscal year 2010 as part of an effort to save $40 billion annually by fiscal year 2011. The administration has said the savings will come from terminating unnecessary contracts, ending an over-reliance on contractors and reducing the use of high-risk contracts. Federal spending on contracts has doubled since 2002, reaching $540 billion last year.
New cyber coordinator: Obama has chosen Howard Schmidt, a longtime computer-security executive with extensive ties to the corporate world, as national cybersecurity coordinator to take on the formidable task of organizing and managing the nation's increasingly vulnerable digital networks.
First flu shots: Obama and first lady Michelle Obama have received their swine-flu shots, Obama said Monday. Their daughters, 11-year-old Malia and 8-year-old Sasha, got their shots in October.
Black outreach: Defending himself against criticism from some black leaders who say he isn't showing enough compassion for the plight of regular blacks, Obama said billions of dollars in the stimulus bill were used to save the jobs of teachers, police officers and firefighters. Obama said many of those workers are black. Obama commented in an Oval Office interview with American Urban Radio Networks.
Seattle Times news services
WASHINGTON — President Obama signed into law legislation that provides $636.3 billion for the U.S. military in fiscal 2010, including $128.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House announced today.
About $65 billion of the war funding is for operations in Afghanistan. The administration says it will need about $30 billion more to finance the addition of 30,000 more troops there that begins this month. That request is likely to come with the fiscal 2011 budget to be submitted in February.
The defense bill was the last of 12 annual spending bills to be sent to the president. It includes a stopgap provision to ensure that unemployment benefits aren't cut off over the holidays.
As the last major spending bill of the year, the legislation also carried about $13.3 billion in nondefense spending, most of it for temporary extensions of several domestic programs Congress didn't have time to consider separately.
Lawmakers extended through February a package of emergency unemployment and health-care benefits that had been part of this year's economic-stimulus package. Those benefits include health-insurance subsidies for laid-off workers under a federal program called COBRA. The benefit had been slated to expire at the end of this month.
Lawmakers also temporarily reauthorized portions of the anti-terror USA Patriot Act and provided funding for Medicare to forestall for two months a scheduled 21 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat patients in the government health program for the elderly.
Senators arrived at a vote on the bill after defeating a Republican effort to filibuster the legislation Friday.
Most of the military spending had broad support, but Republicans sought the delay to express their displeasure with Congress' inability to consider nondefense items separately and to slow progress on the health-care legislation.
Some Republicans also blasted what they perceived as unnecessary pork-barrel spending in the bill.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, complained that the bill was laden with earmarks.
Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said several of the nondefense items in the bill, such as the unemployment-benefits extension, were sorely needed in the face of a lagging economy.
The bill includes about $11 billion more than the $625.3 billion Congress approved for fiscal 2009, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The funding for fiscal 2010 brings to more than $1 trillion the money approved since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks for the wars, veterans' care, embassy protection and enhanced domestic security, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
That includes $748 billion for spending related to the war in Iraq and $300 billion for Afghanistan, the research service said in a Sept. 28 report. The $128.3 billion for war spending is $22.1 billion less than the $150.4 billion approved in fiscal 2009 and the lowest since 2006, according to the CRS.
Source:seattletimes.nwsource.com/
Soldiers' bodies return to the UK
Three British soldiers killed in southern Afghanistan are to be returned to the UK.
Lance Corporal David Kirkness, 24, and Rifleman James Brown, 18, both of 3rd Battalion The Rifles, died when two suicide bombers on a motorbike blew themselves up outside Sangin in Helmand Province on December 15.
They were hailed as heroes for preventing mass carnage in a bazaar packed with Afghan civilians.
Corporal Simon Hornby, 29, of 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, was killed by an improvised explosive device while on a foot patrol in the Nad-e-Ali area of Helmand on Saturday.
The soldiers' bodies will be flown into RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire.
After a private ceremony for their families, a hearse carrying their Union Jack-draped coffins will pass along the high street of nearby Wootton Bassett. The market town has become the focus for the nation's mourning of the deaths of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Crowds have appeared along the route to pay their respects since the bodies of British service personnel began being brought home through RAF Lyneham in April 2007.
L/Cpl Kirkness, from Morley, near Leeds, and Rfn Brown, from Orpington, Kent, died manning a vehicle checkpoint on the road into Sangin. Two suicide bombers on a motorbike drove into the checkpoint and detonated their devices, killing the British servicemen and two Afghan soldiers working with them.
The Ministry of Defence said it was thought the bombers were trying to get into Sangin's bazaar to launch an attack.
Lieutenant Colonel Nick Kitson, commanding officer of 3 Rifles Battle Group, said the British soldiers' comrades took comfort and pride from the fact that the soldiers averted a "much larger tragedy".
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jebhBldk0adZwVy-ewcFLv9JILXw
Sunday, December 20, 2009
So, whose war is it?
David Sedney, US deputy assistant secretary of defence for Pakistan and Afghanistan, has admitted that tensions between Washington and Islamabad are heightening over plans for the agency. He added that as soon as the US has ‘exact targeting information’, it will be passed on to Pakistan, and Islamabad’s cooperation is expected. – Photo by Reuters.
The stage is being set for a military operation in North Waziristan, whether the Pakistani establishment likes it or not. American military heavyweights have urged the government and army to expand operations into the tribal agency, and refusals to do so have not been taken lightly.
More than US demands to eliminate the Quetta shura, and certainly more than the South Waziristan operation, the possibility of an operation in North Waziristan raises fundamental questions about the course of the US-Pakistan partnership in the war against terror. Are we fighting our war, or their war? In either case, what does victory look like? And can there be a long-term solution to militancy in this region?
For the moment, President Asif Zardari has refused to expand military operations into North Waziristan. But the US is not taking no for an answer. David Sedney, US deputy assistant secretary of defence for Pakistan and Afghanistan, has admitted that tensions between Washington and Islamabad are heightening over plans for the agency. He added that as soon as the US has ‘exact targeting information’, it will be passed on to Pakistan — and Islamabad’s cooperation is expected.
Separately, the US has stepped up drone attacks in North Waziristan; 12 of the last 15 strikes have targeted the agency. This activity may leave Pakistan with no option but to wage an offensive. After all, this summer, Hafiz Gul Bahadur, the Taliban commander in North Waziristan, called off a peace deal with the government and launched several attacks against Frontier Corps personnel owing to military incursions and ramped up drone attacks. More surgical strikes — with Pakistani complicity — could cause him to turn anti-government once again. And this time, he may extend attacks against Pakistani security forces beyond the tribal belt.
In the short term, an offensive in North Waziristan is inadvisable for several reasons: The Pakistan Army is already stretched thin across the tribal areas and the onset of winter means harsh fighting conditions. Many Taliban fleeing the South Waziristan operation sought refuge in North Waziristan, bolstering militant ranks there. Pakistani intelligence officials have also admitted that North Waziristan is something of an intel ‘black hole’. In recent weeks, the Taliban have purged their ranks of anyone suspected of being an informer; in North Waziristan alone, the agencies have lost 30 undercover operatives.
Moreover, Bahadur’s fighters and the Haqqani network, which is based in North Waziristan, pose no direct threat to the Pakistani government and security establishment — the former is primarily interested in maintaining territorial control while the latter targets coalition forces in Afghanistan. During the recent operation in South Waziristan, the northern agency largely stuck to its deal with our army to maintain neutrality and permit the safe passage of military convoys.
In the light of this status quo, US demands for Pakistan to move into North Waziristan could be critiqued for betraying a double standard. In Afghanistan, the US has emphasised a shift towards counterinsurgency (COIN). The idea is to minimise civilian casualties, win public support and differentiate between ‘good’ (manageable, reconcilable, and cooperative) and ‘bad’ (hardline, aggressive) militants.
No doubt, from the US point of view, the Haqqanis are ‘bad’ militants as they execute the most violent attacks against the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. But from a Pakistani perspective, the Haqqanis, who have decades-old relationships with Pakistani intelligence officials, and Bahadur’s men, who are amenable to peace deals, fall in the category of reconcilable, and thus, ‘good’ militants.
As recently as February 2008, when the Pakistan government and North Wazirstan-based militants struck a second peace deal (the first was signed in 2006), our authorities apparently agreed to let Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters remain in the agency as long as they ‘remained peaceful’ and did not target Pakistani security forces. For this reason, many will carefully scrutinise Pakistan’s decision to launch a military operation in North Waziristan. It will be perceived as a clarification, once and for all, about whose war against terror we’re fighting (the conundrum did not arise in the south because Mehsud Taliban fighters were targeting the Pakistani establishment). But this is the time for Pakistanis to remember that there is no such thing as a ‘good’ militant. Indeed, it is too simplistic to think that only the US stands to gain from a Pakistani offensive in North Waziristan.
The threat of retaliatory attacks in Pakistan notwithstanding, the decision to let the sleeping dogs of North Waziristan lie would be tantamount to declaring that the Pakistani state endorses terrorism. The Haqqani network boasts thousands of fighters with sway over much of Fata. Given that the US is planning its exit strategy from Afghanistan, the Pakistani army and agencies are understandably reluctant to stir a hornet’s nest that has been pliably buzzing away in recent years. Many intelligence stalwarts are counting on the Haqqanis to serve as ‘strategic assets’ when the time is ripe.
But choosing not to dismantle this network now will only allow it to flourish in the future, making terrorist training camps a permanent feature of our north-western border. Since the North Waziristan Accord of 2006, Haqqani and Bahadur’s fighters have become deeply entrenched in the tribal agency. They run a parallel administrative system comprising courts, jails, recruiting offices for militants and taxation policies that are routinely enforced. Madressahs where youngsters are radicalised are reportedly mushrooming under the watchful eye of Taliban and Al Qaeda security forces.
This parallel system poses a direct threat to the Pakistani government and offers a glimpse into a future where militant networks have been tolerated by our state for too long. For that reason, when it comes to North Waziristan, the question should not be: whose war is it anyway? It should be: can we ever claim victory against terrorism if militant networks thrive within our borders and offer a viable alternative to governance? The answer to the second question is a resounding no. Therefore, Pakistan should move into North Waziristan — but on its own timeline, not that of the US.
Source:dawn.com/
No reason for optimism about war in Afghanistan
According to the polls, President Obama's speech announcing the U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan won over a majority of Americans.
Thomas H. Johnson was not among them.
``It sounded a lot like a George Bush speech, frankly,'' he said. ``There was nothing new. It's old wine in bigger bottles.''
Johnson is a professor at the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. I met him in September, shortly after he'd returned from four months in southern Afghanistan.
During that time, Johnson interviewed numerous Taliban commanders. He came away convinced that American military efforts will fail unless the administration drastically changes its approach.
Johnson was particularly struck by the creeping resurgence of the once-vanquished Taliban. ``I witnessed people Bluetoothing Taliban music from one cell phone to the next. I have a whole CD-ROM full of Taliban poetry,'' he said. ``They're preaching a message that resonates in that part of the country.''
After the United States turned its attention to Iraq, Taliban operatives resurfaced in Afghan villages and took strong roles, filling a vacuum left by the corrupt, mistrusted Afghan government. The Taliban have also taken advantage of local disenchantment with the American troop presence.
``The Afghan people, the average people, have lost patience with us. They expected a lot of us,'' Johnson said. ``After eight years in this country, we still haven't been able to supply security and justice.''
Obama says the primary U.S. mission is to wipe out al Qaeda, but the administration's own intelligence experts say there might be as few as 100 al Qaeda members in all Afghanistan. Most, including Osama bin Laden, are believed to be hiding in mountainous enclaves in Pakistan.
Taliban commanders told Johnson the same thing. ``Nobody could tell me the last time they'd seen a foreign fighter,'' he said.
Johnson's view -- and he's not alone -- is that the battle lines in the war on terrorism have changed significantly since Sept. 11, 2001. ``It's a different Taliban, and a different al Qaeda,'' he said. ``But we have a tendency to lay old models on a new situation, and that worries me.''
After his recent stay in Kandahar, Johnson conferred extensively with U.S. analysts. He's been studying Afghanistan and Central Asia since the 1980s, and his research is widely published. People pay attention to what he says.
In the Dec. 10 issue of Foreign Policy magazine, Johnson co-authored an article that began bluntly:
``There isn't the slightest possibility that the course laid out by Barack Obama in his Dec. 1 speech will halt or even slow the downward spiral of defeat in Afghanistan. None.''
Like some others in his field, Johnson believes that the American strategy for stabilizing Afghanistan should be ``nation-building'' at the village level -- and that the Taliban have already figured that out.
Thomas Friedman, the highly respected columnist for the New York Times, also disagrees with Obama's decision to escalate. ``I'd prefer a minimalist approach,'' he wrote, ``working with tribal leaders the way we did to overthrow the Taliban regime in the first place.''
Meanwhile, the 30,000-troop surge announced by the president will focus on securing the country's urban centers, which aren't where the insurgency is spreading.
The Vietnam comparison to Afghanistan, rebuffed by Obama in his speech, is in Johnson's opinion tragically apt: ``The reality on the ground is that Afghanistan is Vietnam redux.''
He goes even further to say that Obama knows this war is unwinnable, and that the surge is meant to provide political cover in advance of a full U.S. withdrawal before the 2012 election.
Johnson sees it as the ``same cynical exit strategy'' devised by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger to get American forces out of Vietnam. This is a harsh appraisal but it can't be discounted.
Obama wouldn't be the first U.S. president to let domestic political concerns affect his military moves abroad, but he certainly campaigned as a different kind of leader.
The cost of the surge in American lives and dollars will be high, even if we stay only 18 months. And the mission of banishing al Qaeda forever from that region seems farfetched, relying as heavily as it does on cooperation from Pakistan and competence from Afghanistan's armed forces.
When I spoke to Thomas Johnson last week, he was back in Washington, D.C., conferring behind closed doors with the government agencies most deeply involved in executing our Afghan policy.
``I can't find the people who are optimistic,'' he told me, with genuine dismay.
Source:miamiherald.com/
Thomas H. Johnson was not among them.
``It sounded a lot like a George Bush speech, frankly,'' he said. ``There was nothing new. It's old wine in bigger bottles.''
Johnson is a professor at the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. I met him in September, shortly after he'd returned from four months in southern Afghanistan.
During that time, Johnson interviewed numerous Taliban commanders. He came away convinced that American military efforts will fail unless the administration drastically changes its approach.
Johnson was particularly struck by the creeping resurgence of the once-vanquished Taliban. ``I witnessed people Bluetoothing Taliban music from one cell phone to the next. I have a whole CD-ROM full of Taliban poetry,'' he said. ``They're preaching a message that resonates in that part of the country.''
After the United States turned its attention to Iraq, Taliban operatives resurfaced in Afghan villages and took strong roles, filling a vacuum left by the corrupt, mistrusted Afghan government. The Taliban have also taken advantage of local disenchantment with the American troop presence.
``The Afghan people, the average people, have lost patience with us. They expected a lot of us,'' Johnson said. ``After eight years in this country, we still haven't been able to supply security and justice.''
Obama says the primary U.S. mission is to wipe out al Qaeda, but the administration's own intelligence experts say there might be as few as 100 al Qaeda members in all Afghanistan. Most, including Osama bin Laden, are believed to be hiding in mountainous enclaves in Pakistan.
Taliban commanders told Johnson the same thing. ``Nobody could tell me the last time they'd seen a foreign fighter,'' he said.
Johnson's view -- and he's not alone -- is that the battle lines in the war on terrorism have changed significantly since Sept. 11, 2001. ``It's a different Taliban, and a different al Qaeda,'' he said. ``But we have a tendency to lay old models on a new situation, and that worries me.''
After his recent stay in Kandahar, Johnson conferred extensively with U.S. analysts. He's been studying Afghanistan and Central Asia since the 1980s, and his research is widely published. People pay attention to what he says.
In the Dec. 10 issue of Foreign Policy magazine, Johnson co-authored an article that began bluntly:
``There isn't the slightest possibility that the course laid out by Barack Obama in his Dec. 1 speech will halt or even slow the downward spiral of defeat in Afghanistan. None.''
Like some others in his field, Johnson believes that the American strategy for stabilizing Afghanistan should be ``nation-building'' at the village level -- and that the Taliban have already figured that out.
Thomas Friedman, the highly respected columnist for the New York Times, also disagrees with Obama's decision to escalate. ``I'd prefer a minimalist approach,'' he wrote, ``working with tribal leaders the way we did to overthrow the Taliban regime in the first place.''
Meanwhile, the 30,000-troop surge announced by the president will focus on securing the country's urban centers, which aren't where the insurgency is spreading.
The Vietnam comparison to Afghanistan, rebuffed by Obama in his speech, is in Johnson's opinion tragically apt: ``The reality on the ground is that Afghanistan is Vietnam redux.''
He goes even further to say that Obama knows this war is unwinnable, and that the surge is meant to provide political cover in advance of a full U.S. withdrawal before the 2012 election.
Johnson sees it as the ``same cynical exit strategy'' devised by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger to get American forces out of Vietnam. This is a harsh appraisal but it can't be discounted.
Obama wouldn't be the first U.S. president to let domestic political concerns affect his military moves abroad, but he certainly campaigned as a different kind of leader.
The cost of the surge in American lives and dollars will be high, even if we stay only 18 months. And the mission of banishing al Qaeda forever from that region seems farfetched, relying as heavily as it does on cooperation from Pakistan and competence from Afghanistan's armed forces.
When I spoke to Thomas Johnson last week, he was back in Washington, D.C., conferring behind closed doors with the government agencies most deeply involved in executing our Afghan policy.
``I can't find the people who are optimistic,'' he told me, with genuine dismay.
Source:miamiherald.com/
The race against Obama's deadline in Afghanistan
MATA KHAN, AFGHANISTAN
Adm. Mike Mullen, the personification of American military power, is walking the streets of this dusty village in Paktika province when the deferential deputy governor, Qadir Gul Zadran, tells him: "We hope you stay here forever."
Sorry, responds the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but that's not going to happen. America is sending more troops to help boost security in places such as this Pashtun village south of Kabul, but they will begin leaving in 18 months. Asked later whether he had any worries about the new Afghanistan strategy, Mullen answers: "It's just the clock. Can we move as fast as we need to move?"
That ticking clock was Mullen's consistent companion as he traveled across Afghanistan last week to review implementation of President Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops. He visited a half-dozen military outposts and at each stop repeated the same message: The new strategy can work, but the challenge is huge and the time is short.
Traveling with Mullen, I had a chance to see up close the opportunities and pitfalls of Obama's decision for a short-term escalation. The strongest impression was that the administration's plan to begin transferring responsibility to the Afghan army and police in July 2011 is overly optimistic. If all goes well, the Afghan security forces will be stronger by then, but they will still need a lot of American help.
Let's start with Obama's desire to rush in the 30,000 additional troops by next summer. It ain't likely to happen. Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, the U.S. deputy commander, cautions that they may not all arrive until November. Mullen says that he's confident the first 16,000 will arrive by July, but he warned a meeting of logistical planners at Bagram: "I just hope you have a Plan B. Life doesn't turn out to be perfect."
The logistical buildup may be the most complicated part of the surge. To transport all those troops means, among other things, tripling the number of beds at a transit base in Kyrgyzstan, adding facilities at three airports in Afghanistan and constructing new quarters around the country that are solid but not too solid.
"We're not staying forever," Mullen admonished the logisticians. "Whatever we're building, I don't want to build it for 30 years."
Then there's the challenge of improving the Afghan security forces. Sometimes it has a make-believe quality: At a base near Gardez, Afghan officers are giving their own PowerPoint presentations and staffing a joint operations center with banks of computers and even a screen to display the camera feeds from U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles.
But the temptation to have the Afghans mimic the American military is a mistake. As Mullen told U.S. soldiers at a base north of Kandahar, the Afghans "need to take care of their security at a level they're capable of, which is 'good enough.' " And reaching even that middling level will take a while.
Another reality check here is the corruption of the Afghan government. When Mullen held a "shura" with tribal leaders in Kandahar, they all agreed this was the No. 1 problem. "Corruption in Afghan society is like cancer," said one bearded elder. "It has spread all over the body. It's that bad. We must bring them to justice." Mullen promised action, but that's complicated by the allegations that Kandahar's most notoriously corrupt figure is the brother of President Hamid Karzai.
"How much time do we have" to regain the trust of people in Kandahar, Mullen asked the elders. One cautioned that the fact that only half of those invited to the shura had come was a sign that "people have lost faith."
What's encouraging is that where the United States has added troops this year, security has improved sharply. We saw that most clearly in Nawa in Helmand province, where the Taliban's hold has been broken by a surge of Marines. The local governor, Abdul Manaf, welcomed Mullen with a toothy smile and a big embrace, gushing: "I wish I could put flowers on your shoulders."
Mullen was so impressed by the Nawa success story after an exuberant walk through the local market that he told the Marines: "Continue this focus on the Afghan people and I guarantee that this strategy will succeed."
But I asked the local commander of the Afghan army, Brig. Gen. Muhayadin Ghori, whether he would be ready to take responsibility for security in July 2011, as Obama's strategists hope. He answered: "We need more time."
Source:washingtonpost.com/
Accord on free truck movement with Afghanistan
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and Afghanistan have agreed to allow trucks to move freely in each other’s territory.
According to the accord, Afghan trucks would now be able to operate up to the Karachi port, while Pakistani trucks could move across Afghanistan towards Central Asia.
This was decided at the fourth round of talks on the Afghan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement, which started here on Saturday.
However, Pakistan did not agree to allow Indian goods to transit through its territory into Afghanistan. A Pakistani official said the issue could only be discussed at the composite dialogue with India.
An Afghan official said the issue was a ‘minor irritant’ and it would not derail the talks. A commerce ministry official said changes were likely to be made in the 1965 Transit Trade Agreement.
The three major pending issues are transit facility, trucking facility and (prevention of) smuggling, he said, adding that relevant bodies would finalise their reports by the end of the talks on Dec 21.
Tags: transit,pakistan afghanistan,trucks movement,Afghan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement
Source:dawn.com/
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Pakistani militants relocate to heartland
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Dec. 19 (UPI) -- Pakistani militants are moving from lawless tribal regions under attack from Islamabad to cities in the country's heartland, security experts say.
U.S. and Pakistani officials say the move by insurgents to establish smaller cells within Pakistani cities is an unintended consequence of the largely successful campaigns by the Pakistani army and unmanned CIA aircraft in tribal regions such as South Waziristan, The Washington Post reported Saturday.
Muhammad Amir Rana, director of the Pak Institute for Peace Studies, a security-oriented think tank, told the Post: "Now they're all over -- Afghanistan, North Waziristan and inside Pakistan. They have scattered their network and structure. It's easy for many of them to hide in Punjab or Karachi."
Pakistani officials reportedly say they're doing all they can to prevent terrorism in such areas as Punjab province, where a wave of attacks have been blamed on fighters who have fled the tribal areas.
But, the Post said, U.S. intelligence officials have been frustrated by opposition from the Pakistani government to expanding their use of drone strikes beyond the tribal belt. Citing unnamed officials, it reported that targeting outside the tribal zone for drone attacks could produce a powerful anti-American backlash in the country.
Source:upi.com/
Bomb attack kills US soldier in Afghanistan: NATO
KABUL — A bomb attack has killed another US soldier in southern Afghanistan, pushing the death toll of foreign troops to close to 500 during the war this year, NATO said Saturday.
The American was killed on Friday "as a result of an IED strike in southern Afghanistan," NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said in a statement, referring to an improvised explosive device.
IEDs, which are cheap and easy to make and difficult to detect, account for a growing number of troop deaths in Afghanistan, as the war against Taliban-led insurgents escalates.
So far this year 496 foreign troops have died in the country, according to an AFP count based on a tally kept by the independent website icasualties. Of those deaths, 306 were American.
US President Barack Obama has ordered an extra 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, and NATO countries have pledged around 7,000 more.
They are expected to deploy by mid- to late-2010 and analysts say more foreign troops will inevitably mean more deaths.
There are currently more than 100,000 foreign troops
Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ixy1aRgKDIw7dz7fvZpETd0MkIDw
NATO asked Russia to authorize ground military transit to Afghanistan
Russian President Medvedev promised to consider the request of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO Secretary General on cooperation in Afghanistan, Interfax reports with the reference to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
According to Lavrov, during the meeting with Russian leader NATO Secretary General offered Russia to increase the number of helicopters, participating in military operations in Afghanistan, as well as ensure training of personnel and supply of parts and fuel for Russian machines. Besides, Rasmussen proposed to consider comprehensive training of Afghan policemen in Russia, noting that Russia and NATO "have a ground for the development of cooperation" in the area of cargo transit to Afghanistan.
According to Vremya Novostei newspaper, first of all, Mr. Rasmussen arrived in Moscow to get the approval of Russia on ground and air transit of ammunition and arms, designated for International forces in Afghanistan, through Russian territory".
"It looks like Brussels – the observer Dubnov says – wants to make the same deal with Moscow as it made with Washington DC during the visit of Obama’s visit in the Russian capital – air transit of military cargo and soldiers to Afghanistan".
Source:enews.ferghana.ru/
According to Lavrov, during the meeting with Russian leader NATO Secretary General offered Russia to increase the number of helicopters, participating in military operations in Afghanistan, as well as ensure training of personnel and supply of parts and fuel for Russian machines. Besides, Rasmussen proposed to consider comprehensive training of Afghan policemen in Russia, noting that Russia and NATO "have a ground for the development of cooperation" in the area of cargo transit to Afghanistan.
According to Vremya Novostei newspaper, first of all, Mr. Rasmussen arrived in Moscow to get the approval of Russia on ground and air transit of ammunition and arms, designated for International forces in Afghanistan, through Russian territory".
"It looks like Brussels – the observer Dubnov says – wants to make the same deal with Moscow as it made with Washington DC during the visit of Obama’s visit in the Russian capital – air transit of military cargo and soldiers to Afghanistan".
Source:enews.ferghana.ru/
Is Pakistan too big to fail?
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 (UPI) -- The best-known sound bites from the George W. Bush presidency ranged from "mission accomplished" to "you are either with us or against us."
For the moment and given the financial crises, the equivalent slogan from President Barack Obama's young administration is "too big to fail." And his widely acclaimed acceptance address for this year's Nobel Peace Prize -- more a major academic lecture than a speech -- suggested that this phrase should be relevant to Pakistan.
Is Pakistan too big to fail?
At West Point, Obama declared Afghanistan to be a vital American national interest. Many question that proposition. Moreover, if defanging al-Qaida is job one, why are 40,000 additional NATO and U.S. troops needed to hunt down possibly as few as 100 al-Qaida terrorists? Furthermore, why should the United States expend its treasure to underwrite an Afghan government that is corrupt, incompetent and no doubt suspect in how it won the past presidential election? And since Afghanistan is incapable of paying for the security forces it needs to defeat the Taliban insurgency, is the United States prepared to fork up some $10 billion a year for that purpose?
The risks and dangers are huge. U.S. credibility and influence along with NATO's future are on the line. Al-Qaida and extremism will hail anything less than outright U.S. success as a great psychological and political victory. And if, as the administration states, Pakistan is the "strategic center of gravity" in the region, "winning" in Afghanistan is crucial to assure stability for its neighbor.
But if Pakistan is this important, why not concentrate on it? The doomsday scenario here is that the insurgency in Pakistan could within months overthrow the government, replace it with a radical regime and then get its hands on some 50-100 nuclear weapons. That fear is overstated for many reasons including the Pakistani army's role as the force of last resort that will not permit this nightmare to take place.
Yet there is a longer-term reality that should inform our thinking.
Over the next decade some 90 million to 100 million Pakistanis will be 18 and younger. Ill or not educated or graduates of 12,000 madrassas with extremist and anti-American curricula; forced into the cities that will become even more overcrowded and violent-prone; facing poor job prospects; and adrift amidst a society rife with increasingly radical movements, the makings of a perfect storm are being put in place. What can be done to prevent this volatile mixture from blowing up?
The Obama administration argued that General Motors, AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the biggest banks excluding Lehman Brothers were too big to fail. Hundreds of billions of dollars were spent to keep these institutions afloat. Now, if Pakistan is this important to stability and to American interests, placing it in a similar category to these institutions is something to be seriously considered.
Actions must be both preventive and creative in exploiting opportunity.
Demographics point toward a looming crisis. The good news is that any explosion can be prevented because there is time to put solutions in place. But, more importantly, unlike Afghanistan, which lacks the infrastructure for real investment, Pakistan offers a great opportunity for economic growth. At the kickoff of the American-Pakistan Foundation in New York last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made reference to these opportunities.
The theme for action is Pakistani President Asif Zardari's plea for "trade not aid." Pakistan needs an additional $8 billion to $10 billion a year in trade and investment to put its economy in order. That would include building or rebuilding the educational and other institutional infrastructure to develop the human capital of the country.
Given the $60 billion invested in GM and more in AIG, and the amounts put into TARP and other programs, the U.S. government ought to consider creating an investment fund for Pakistan. This government fund would rally private investment as a partner perhaps offering insurance as an incentive. The expectation would be that these investments would indeed return profits to the treasury.
Pakistan would have to do its part. It is in the process of writing new laws for bankruptcy and other business-friendly incentives.
Corruption remains endemic, and all investments would have to be fully transparent and made directly into companies and business and not third parties. As Clinton noted in her address to the American-Pakistan Foundation, agriculture, water, power and natural resources offer great commercial opportunities for investment.
Pakistan is too big to fail. It and not Afghanistan is the more vital U.S. interest. If we are prepared to spend $10 billion a year for an indefinite period to fund Afghan security forces, an equivalent amount of investment in Pakistan that could actually turn a profit is surely a very sensible use of our resources.
--
(Harlan Ullman is senior adviser at the Atlantic Council and chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
Source:upi.com/
In Afghanistan, it does take a village
HELSINKI, Finland, Dec. 16 (UPI) -- In testimony before the U.S. Senate, U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal said: "To pursue our core goal of defeating al-Qaida and preventing their return to Afghanistan, we must disrupt and degrade the Taliban's capacity, deny their access to the Afghan population, and strengthen the Afghan security forces."
To succeed, McChrystal and his warriors must fully understand the character, motivations, ambitions and, in particular, the methods of the enemy. Approaches that may have worked earlier in Afghanistan or even recently in Iraq may fail to turn around the present situation.
Saeen Dilawar, from Pakistan's central Punjab province, became a jihadi in 1992, joining the militant wing of a mainstream religious party Jamaat-e-Islami, which was sponsored and trained by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to conduct a proxy war against India in the disputed province of Kashmir. Dilawar was forced to return to his farming village when the ISI stopped funding the insurgent activities of his militant group.
According to a report by Issam Ahmed of The Christian Science Monitor, the story does not end there. Dilawar and other Punjabi jihadis have linked up with the Taliban. This development not only increases the threat along the already volatile Afghanistan-Pakistan border, but it has spawned an insurgent threat in Pakistan's governmental, military and culture heartland.
Dilawar is quick to stress "a true jihadi never retires," recalling his recent experience in Afghanistan "There is no feeling quite like killing infidels."
As Ahmed writes, Dilawar's friend Akbar Ali Alvi, a former Jamaat-e-Islami official, adds, "The war may be in Waziristan and Afghanistan now, but, God willing, we will bring it to the streets of New York and Washington."
It would be a serious error in judgment to assume that the Islamic extremist threat begins and ends with al-Qaida. It has now undergone metastasis. The disease has spread far beyond the narrow border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Al-Qaida now represents an important, albeit small, element of a Taliban viral insurgency from southern and eastern Afghanistan, across the border areas and deep into Pakistan's vital Punjab province. They are flush with cash from drug trafficking and funding from international foundations supporting extremist Islamic beliefs.
The Taliban are winning their own version of the "ink spot" strategy, and their ambitions reach far beyond simple control of Afghanistan, one-third of which they now effectively rule.
Fully understanding and countering how the Taliban operate specifically at the Afghan village level will be critical to the success of McChrystal's plan to "disrupt and degrade the Taliban's capacity, deny their access to the Afghan population and strengthen the Afghan security forces."
The manner in which Taliban forces take over strategic villages and create networks covering large areas with relatively few forces is brilliantly outlined by Special Forces NCO Mark Sexton and William Lind in "On War No. 325: How the Taliban take a Village."
Within Afghan villages there are three nodes if influence: village elders, the religious leader and the village security force. Through either indoctrination or coercion, the Taliban replaces the traditional village beliefs or leaders with those that support the Taliban philosophy. Creating a network of these subverted villages, the Taliban can control and operate from large geographical areas, establish sophisticated communication capabilities, attack opportunistically and then melt back into these networked sanctuaries.
As the authors state, to counter the Taliban, U.S. and Afghan forces must be able to infiltrate and shape the village nodes of influence. They write: "The U.S. and Afghan forces and government will need to identify individuals to use lethal and non-lethal targeting. This requires in-depth knowledge of tribal structure, alliances and feuds. Viable alternatives or choices need to be available to village leaders and villagers. Just placing U.S. and Afghan soldiers at an outpost and conducting token presence patrols and occasionally bantering with locals and organizing a shura once a month are not going to work."
Through a decentralized and bottom-up approach starting at the village level, supplementing it with conventional infantry and air support as appropriate, the result will likely be a more effective means of executing all the elements of a successful counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan.
How the surge troops are used is more important than how many are sent.
--
(Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D., is a colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve and a veteran of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army or U.S. government.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
Source:upi.com/
Jockeying for influence in post-U.S. Afghanistan
HELSINKI, Finland, Dec. 18 (UPI) -- The Obama administration's decision to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 18 months after the start of the surge has already begun to bear fruit, but perhaps not in a way that was intended.
The strongest Taliban warrior in Afghanistan, Siraj Haqqani, whose fighters pose the biggest threat to U.S. forces, remains protected by Pakistan in a sanctuary in North Waziristan.
Jane Perlez of The New York Times reports that requests by the United States to crack down on the Afghan Haqqani Taliban have been rebuffed because Pakistan views it as contrary to its long-term interests in Afghanistan beyond the timetable of U.S. President Barack Obama's surge.
As reported, Pakistan has little faith in the surge strategy and it sees a need to position itself for a regional realignment in Afghanistan once U.S. forces leave. Pakistan considers the Haqqani group vital to its interests in the jostling for influence that will pit Pakistan, India, Russia, China and Iran against one another in the post-American Afghanistan. It is believed that the Haqqani Taliban controls Paktika, Paktia and Khost provinces and has a strong presence in Ghazni, Logar and Wardak provinces. Maintaining support for the Haqqani group provides the needed leverage in Afghanistan as Pakistan's military and political surrogate.
Pakistan continues to demonstrate a reluctance to clamp down of the Quetta shura of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar for the same reasons. The Afghan Taliban was a creation of Pakistan's intelligence services to exert influence and stabilize Afghanistan compatible with its own interests after the Soviet withdrawal and years of bloody civil war.
Pakistan's military is focusing its attention on subduing the Pakistan Taliban mainly in South Waziristan. The Pakistani leadership sees these groups as a direct threat to the stability of Pakistan, while viewing the Afghan Taliban as a means to counter moves by other countries, particularly India, from gaining influence on its western border. This strategy is at best unpredictable in its outcome and may be based on political and military assumptions that are no longer relevant. Once victorious in Afghanistan the Pakistani Taliban, al-Qaida and the Afghan Taliban may no longer be as loosely connected, separable and controllable as they may now appear. Undoubtedly a Taliban victory in Afghanistan will generate an influx of new players into the region upon which the government of Pakistan will have little or no influence.
As reported by the Daily Times of Pakistan, thousands of students are flocking to attend conservative Islamic schools in that country. Both Pakistan and foreign governments consider this situation a potential threat.
"The students could export extremism back to their own countries or stay and fight in Pakistan and Afghanistan," wrote the Daily Times.
Recently five young American Muslim men traveled to Pakistan allegedly to take up arms against their fellow Americans. A perception of ultimate victory of the Taliban can only increase this trend, create a magnet for extremism, increase doubts about the stability of the Pakistani government and significantly raise the Indian concern about new terrorist attacks upon their country.
Pakistan's plan will not play out in isolation. Others will have a vote, in particular the non-Pashtun Afghan Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen and Hazaras, the so-called partners in the Northern Alliance, groups long-supported by India and traditionally resisting Pashtun dominance in Afghanistan. Iran has been a longtime meddler in Afghan affairs, especially among the Farsi-speaking population and the Shiite Hazara. Iranian agents have consistently smuggled weapons to forces fighting the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
In the absence of either hegemony or a balance-of-power agreement, continued Taliban success in Afghanistan will likely lead to a civil war and a lethal playing field where outsiders challenge each other to exert regional influence. In such a scenario the Afghan people will likely have even less control of their fate than they do now.
Obama has presented an ambitious 18-month strategy to increase U.S. and NATO troop levels, reverse the Taliban's increasing dominance in the Afghan countryside, strengthen the Afghan government and increase the size and effectiveness of the Afghan security forces to stabilize Afghanistan sovereignty.
Hard-core Taliban support represents only a small percentage of the Afghan people. Nevertheless Afghans, surrounding South Asian countries and the enemy are waiting and hedging their bets to ascertain if the United States and its NATO allies have the will and the wherewithal to see the job through to a successful conclusion.
Now that we've embarked on this path, I can only pray that the president is right.
--
(Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D., is a colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve and a veteran of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army or U.S. government.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
Source:upi.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)