Afghan and NATO officials say a coalition air strike has "likely killed" four Afghan soldiers.
U.S.Military officials say joint force of Afghan and coalition soldiers came under fire early Saturday morning and called in the air strike.
NATO and Afghan officials say their initial investigation after the air strike indicates the small arms fire originated from an Afghan National Army outpost.
Brigadier General Eric Tremblay, an coalition spokesman, called it a regrettable incident.
He said joint forces "work extremely hard" to synchronize their operations.
An Afghan Ministry of Defense spokesman says the International Security Assistance Force and the Afghan army will conduct a joint investigation into what he termed an "unfortunate accident."
Source:voanews.com/
Saturday, January 30, 2010
India 'could do business' with Taliban: reports
India still considers the Taliban to be a terrorist group with close links to Al-Qaeda and other outfits.
But New Delhi would back proposals to reach out to them conditionally, Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna told the Times of India newspaper in an interview published Saturday.
"The international community has come out with a proposition to bring into the political mainstream those willing to function within the Afghan system," he said.
"If the Taliban meet the three conditions put forward -- acceptance of the Afghan constitution, severing connections with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and renunciation of violence -- and they are accepted in the mainstream of Afghan politics and society, we could do business," added Krishna.
The Economic Times quoted Krishna as saying the Taliban "should be given a second chance" and that military action was not the only way to counter their activity.
Krishna's comments follow a major international conference in London this week where nearly 70 countries backed a 500-million-dollar Afghan government drive to tempt fighters to give up their weapons in exchange for jobs and other incentives.
India has provided over one billion dollars in humanitarian and development assistance to Afghanistan since the Taliban were ousted in 2001 and also warily backed US President Barack Obama's surge of 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers.
But it has expressed concerns that an early US exit from the war-torn country could reverberate in the region, already reeling from a wave of militant violence in Pakistan.
"We're next door and our experiences make it difficult for us to differentiate between good or bad Taliban," Krishna told the Times of India.
He said Afghanistan's stability depended on neighbouring countries' "support, sustenance and sanctuaries for terrorist organisations" ending immediately, an apparent reference to long-time foe Pakistan
.
Source:AFP
Aid project in Pakistan stalls
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan- A $46 million American development program in Pakistan's tribal regions along the Afghan border has made little progress since it was launched in 2008, according to a U.S.government audit.
The finding illustrates the challenges facing Washington as it tries to boost civilian aid there to blunt the appeal of al-Qaeda and the Taliban
.
The audit, dated Thursday and posted on the Web site of the U.S. Agency for International Development, found that "little real progress" toward the program's stated goals had been made in the first 22 months of the 36-month program. It said the program so far had spent only $15.5 million.
The program, audited by the office of the inspector general, was set up to strengthen government institutions and local aid groups in the tribal regions. It is to train staff, install computer systems, and run projects to ensure future aid money is spent more effectively.
The audit said work had been slowed by the deteriorating security situation in the northwest. All foreign staff working on U.S. government projects were withdrawn from the northwestern city of Peshawar after a U.S. aid worker was killed there in 2008, making work much more difficult.
It said a plan to install computers and train staff to use them at the tribal region's secretariat in Peshawar had barely gotten off the ground.
It noted that 340 of the 400 computers delivered there remained in boxes.
The audit did mention some successes for the program, such as the creation of a public outreach campaign promoting peace and 74 project and financial management training events held for 1,000 government workers.
The program is being run by Development Alternatives Inc., an American firm that won the contract offered by USAID.
In part the audit blamed a new U.S. government initiative to direct money through the Pakistani government and local aid groups, not foreign for-profit contractors such as DAI.
The shift is an effort to address local demands that as much money as possible is spent locally and thus stays in the country.
As a result of the new strategy, it said DAI did not know whether its contract would be terminated, and many key activities were put on hold.
The audit said the contractor had requested $15 million in June 2009 from the government to continue its work but was given $4.7 million.
In the border region yesterday, security forces battled extremists for a third day and the Pakistani government said 44 suspected insurgents were killed.
The clashes were taking place in Bajur, an area the Pakistani army declared free of extremists in early 2009 after a major offensive.
There was no independent confirmation of the fighting or the identities of the dead in Bajur, a tribal region where al-Qaeda and Taliban have long had a presence.
Pakistan has launched a series of operations against extremists in the tribal regions, pushing them back in some areas.
But the United States wants the army to continue pressing the fight because Taliban fighters in Afghanistan use the region as a base from which to attack NATO and U.S. forces.
It says stabilizing Pakistan and getting it to crack down on extremists in the northwest is key to success in Afghanistan, where Washington is sending 30,000 extra troops in a final attempt to turn around the war.
As well as urging force, the Obama administration has authorized the dispersal of $7.5 billion in development assistance from American taxpayers over the next five years to convince Pakistanis their interests are best served by the state, not by extremists.
Source:philly.com/
Blast Hits Pakistani Checkpoint
A suspected suicide bomber has killed at least 12 people in an attack on a checkpoint in north-west PakistanI, officials say.
A number of people were also injured when the bomber attacked the checkpoint in Khar, the main town in the troubled Bajaur tribal region.
Pakistani security forces have been battling militants in the Khar area.
Government officials said on Friday that at least 24 suspected militants had been killed in the fighting.
"It looks like a suicide attack," regional police official Fazl-e-Rabi told Reuters news agency after the checkpoint attack.
He added that at least seven of the dead appeared to have been passersby.
Initial reports suggested the attacker was in a vehicle. A local official later told AFP news agency the bomber had been wearing a suicide belt.
The army mounted a major offensive against Taliban militants in Bajaur in August 2008, ending in a truce early last year.
Close to the Afghan border, Bajaur has long been suspected of being the hiding-place of Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other top al-Qaeda leaders.
Source:news.peacefmonline.com/
A number of people were also injured when the bomber attacked the checkpoint in Khar, the main town in the troubled Bajaur tribal region.
Pakistani security forces have been battling militants in the Khar area.
Government officials said on Friday that at least 24 suspected militants had been killed in the fighting.
"It looks like a suicide attack," regional police official Fazl-e-Rabi told Reuters news agency after the checkpoint attack.
He added that at least seven of the dead appeared to have been passersby.
Initial reports suggested the attacker was in a vehicle. A local official later told AFP news agency the bomber had been wearing a suicide belt.
The army mounted a major offensive against Taliban militants in Bajaur in August 2008, ending in a truce early last year.
Close to the Afghan border, Bajaur has long been suspected of being the hiding-place of Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other top al-Qaeda leaders.
Source:news.peacefmonline.com/
Afghan talks offer not for Mullah Omar: US
WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday that while the United States backed the Taliban integration programme, the offer did not include the group’s top leadership.
Earlier, the Pentagon had expressed similar sentiments about the integration plan approved at a meeting of more than 60 nations in London on Thursday.
Secretary Clinton, who also attended the conference, told America’s National Public Radio network that she understood the military action alone was not enough to win the war in Afghanistan but the London peace proposal was not meant for senior Taliban leaders.
In her interview to NPR, Mrs Clinton acknowledged that most modern conflicts don’t end with a victory on the field of battle and therefore political and development work was essential.
“I think everyone has realised, as we did in Iraq, that you have to begin to go right at the insurgents and peel those off who are willing to renounce violence, renounce Al Qaeda, agree to live by the laws and constitution of Afghanistan and re-enter society,” Mrs Clinton said.
“That is not going to happen with (Taliban chief) Mullah Omar and the like,” she added. “But there are so many fighters in the Taliban that are there, frankly, because it’s a way to make a living in a country where the Taliban pay them more than they can make as a farmer or in some other line of work out in the countryside.”
Earlier, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told a briefing in Washington that the US government was still working to figure out which mid-level Taliban officials it might be possible to integrate into the current Afghan political structure.
He said that top Taliban figures, like the country’s former leader Mullah Omar, would probably be what he called “a bridge too far”.
“Omar is probably the extreme,” said Mr Morrell. “The foot-soldiers are probably the other extreme. The question is what happens to the others. Can they be won over? Can they become a part of the political fabric? And that’s, I think, what we’re all trying to figure out. And I don’t know that we have an answer yet.”
Secretary Clinton’s remarks came a day after Afghan President Hamid Karzai told the London conference that he planned to convene a grand Jirga and invite low-level Taliban militants and “disenchanted brothers who are not part of Al Qaeda or other terrorist networks”.
Secretary Clinton claimed that there had already been some progress on reintegration. “There already have been Taliban who have left,” she said, adding that how the reconciliation process evolved “will be a little bit like jazz … we can’t lay it out completely”.
The secretary, however, insisted that the shift in policy towards accommodation of some fighters did not constitute an exit strategy; instead, it was one element of a comprehensive plan.
“You have to have a very tough-minded attitude about this. This is not sweetness and light,” the secretary of state said. “You’re dealing with a very difficult, complex phenomenon.”
In response to a recent remark by Mr Karzai that he expected western troops to be in Afghanistan for the next decade, Mrs Clinton said she did not think “most western troops will be in a combat role”.
“It won’t be like today, where we are putting in thousands more troops, 30,000 from our own and from other countries,” she said.
In Washington, other US officials told the media that it was up to the Afghan government to decide which Taliban leaders could be integrated.
But the Pentagon spokesman said he expected officials in Kabul to make their decisions in consultation with US President Barack Obama.
Mr Morrell indicated that senior Taliban leaders like Mullah Omar who, in his words, “has the blood of thousands of Americans on his hands”, would likely not be acceptable candidates for “reintegration”.
On Tuesday, the United Nations announced it had removed five former Taliban officials, including a former foreign minister, from its list of terrorists, ending restrictions on their travel and bank accounts. That could be a first step toward involving them in a reconciliation process.
Source:dawn.com
Obama whistles past Afghanistan in annual address
WASHINGTON:In his first state of the union address on Wednesday night, US President Barack Obama re-emphasised an earlier pledge to start bringing back American troops from Afghanistan by 2011 to satisfy his own people who do not want a prolonged engagement in a distant war.
The US president uses his state of the union speech — delivered in a joint congressional session — to underline his achievements in the preceding year and to spell out his plans for the future. “In Afghanistan, we’re increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home,” said Mr Obama, earning a standing ovation from the lawmakers and his guests.
In the president’s 7,308-word speech, there were only 92 words for Afghanistan, a place where more than 100,000 US soldiers are engaged in a fight with an enemy they were told threatens American lives and interests.
The decision to keep references to foreign policy issues to the minimum in one of the longest state of the union speeches in recent years, made it amply clear that the Obama administration would focus mainly on domestic issues in its remaining three years.
The emphasis will be on propping up a sagging economy, creating jobs and education reforms. Recent polls show that most Americans are focussed on economy and what it means for them.
The shift away from his other pet issues — health care reform and climate change — demonstrated the impact last week’s Republican win in the Massachusetts Senate race has had on the president’s agenda. But the way Mr Obama whistled past Afghanistan, surprised many in Washington. Some of them also noted that it took Mr Obama about an hour to utter the word “terrorist”.
The US media pointed out that about 850 words of Mr Obama’s 7,308-word address — around 12 per cent of the total — dealt with foreign affairs.
In contrast, President George W. Bush in his last address devoted some 2,200 words — 38 per cent of the total — to foreign policy issues.
Mr Obama mentioned “terrorists/terrorism” three times and “Al Qaeda” twice; Mr Bush in 2008 used “terror”, “terrorism” or “terrorists” 23 times and “Al Qaeda” 11 times. Mr Bush additionally used the words “extremists” or “extremism” nine times.
“Democracy” made two appearances in Mr Obama’s speech, while Mr Bush used “democracy” or “democratic” seven times.
Mr Obama made reference to Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Russia, Haiti, Guinea, South Korea, Panama, Colombia, India, China and Germany.
He did not mention Pakistan.
He also failed to mention the Israeli-Palestinian issue, despite having made the push for a “two-state solution” a foreign policy priority in his inaugural speech last year.
National Security
In the portion dealing with national security, Mr Obama argued that the war against terrorism must be won, and that it required a bipartisan approach.
“Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated,” he said.
“So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let’s leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future—for America and the world.”
Drawing on classified information available to him, Mr Obama claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: “In the last year, hundreds of Al Qaeda’s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008,” he said.
Mr Obama said that in Afghanistan, his administration would “reward good governance”, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans — men and women alike.
“We’re joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who … in London … reaffirm(ed) our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed,” he declared.
Source:dawn.com/
In the president’s 7,308-word speech, there were only 92 words for Afghanistan, a place where more than 100,000 US soldiers are engaged in a fight with an enemy they were told threatens American lives and interests.
The decision to keep references to foreign policy issues to the minimum in one of the longest state of the union speeches in recent years, made it amply clear that the Obama administration would focus mainly on domestic issues in its remaining three years.
The emphasis will be on propping up a sagging economy, creating jobs and education reforms. Recent polls show that most Americans are focussed on economy and what it means for them.
The shift away from his other pet issues — health care reform and climate change — demonstrated the impact last week’s Republican win in the Massachusetts Senate race has had on the president’s agenda. But the way Mr Obama whistled past Afghanistan, surprised many in Washington. Some of them also noted that it took Mr Obama about an hour to utter the word “terrorist”.
The US media pointed out that about 850 words of Mr Obama’s 7,308-word address — around 12 per cent of the total — dealt with foreign affairs.
In contrast, President George W. Bush in his last address devoted some 2,200 words — 38 per cent of the total — to foreign policy issues.
Mr Obama mentioned “terrorists/terrorism” three times and “Al Qaeda” twice; Mr Bush in 2008 used “terror”, “terrorism” or “terrorists” 23 times and “Al Qaeda” 11 times. Mr Bush additionally used the words “extremists” or “extremism” nine times.
“Democracy” made two appearances in Mr Obama’s speech, while Mr Bush used “democracy” or “democratic” seven times.
Mr Obama made reference to Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Russia, Haiti, Guinea, South Korea, Panama, Colombia, India, China and Germany.
He did not mention Pakistan.
He also failed to mention the Israeli-Palestinian issue, despite having made the push for a “two-state solution” a foreign policy priority in his inaugural speech last year.
National Security
In the portion dealing with national security, Mr Obama argued that the war against terrorism must be won, and that it required a bipartisan approach.
“Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated,” he said.
“So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let’s leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future—for America and the world.”
Drawing on classified information available to him, Mr Obama claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: “In the last year, hundreds of Al Qaeda’s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008,” he said.
Mr Obama said that in Afghanistan, his administration would “reward good governance”, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans — men and women alike.
“We’re joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who … in London … reaffirm(ed) our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed,” he declared.
Source:dawn.com/
Karzai's Plan To Pay For Peace In Afghanistan
Afghan President Hamid Karzai met the representatives of more than 60 nations at a summit hosted at London-
.
He used the opportunity to launch a fresh programme of reconciliation and reintegration.
The centrepiece of his plan revolves around tempting militant foot soldiers to switch sides by offering them land, money, jobs and opportunities as an alternative to war.
The Government has had a long-standing policy of offering help and protection to Taliban defectors but it has been poorly funded, so the help has been limited and the defectors few.
One official in receipt of the plan told Sky News that the aim was to appeal to "low and mid-level" Taliban-
who are believed to be drawn into fighting through economic desperation.
"Now is not the time to talk to the ideologues at the top of the insurgency," he said.
"But there's a belief that with some real help - like providing land to cultivate or funds to set up independent businesses - we can persuade the foot soldiers at the bottom to give up their weapons."
Malvi Mohammed Ishaq Nizami
Any fighters joining the programme would have to renounce violence and none with links to al Qaeda would be accepted.
One prominent Taliban who has defected and joined the Reintegration programme, spoke to Sky in the Afghan capital, Kabul.
Malvi Mohammed Ishaq Nizami was a well-known Taliban activist, running the country's extremist radio and television station before the fall of the Taliban Government in 2001.
He fled into exile in Pakistan but was offered protection and security if he returned as part of the reconciliation process.
"There is no doubt it was very risky and dangerous," he said, "but I was born in this country and I grew up here and I felt I had a duty to do something for my country so I returned."
He is now engaged in trying to persuade others to join the reintegration programme.
"Money is not the main thing but it is a motivation, and if they are offered specific help which will change their lives, then they will switch sides.
"At the moment the reintegration pot is empty so it is very difficult."
Prince Ali Seraj
The international community has backed President Karzai's plan, but is is controversial.
Prince Ali Seraj runs the National Conciliation for Dialogue with the Tribesmen of Afghanistan - and he believes it is doomed.
"In a poor land like Afghanistan, if you make a statement like that you will have 30 million people lining up to get land and money.
"This is no cohesive group of people with a chief executive officer and a top man. There is no particular list of Taliban where you can say 'Ahmed, come over to us and we will pay you thirty dollars.'
"It is a pipe dream and wishful thinking and will create more problems. You might even have people joining the Taliban so they can be paid to switch."
Haji Ehsan and family
Haji Ehsan was among more than 80 families who saw their businesses reduced to ashes when militants stormed a shopping centre in Kabul last week.
He has been left with nothing - but has 10 children and six grandchildren to care for at home. "It is very hard to find the food for them," he says.
"I have lost my business but the children still need feeding and they are hungry.
"I am worrying a lot about the future because I have no money for anything and no business. I just hope the international community can help us.
"I know the Taliban offer money to people to fight - and this is it, when people have nothing, they will be forced to go out and join any side."
Source:sky.com/
.
He used the opportunity to launch a fresh programme of reconciliation and reintegration.
The centrepiece of his plan revolves around tempting militant foot soldiers to switch sides by offering them land, money, jobs and opportunities as an alternative to war.
The Government has had a long-standing policy of offering help and protection to Taliban defectors but it has been poorly funded, so the help has been limited and the defectors few.
One official in receipt of the plan told Sky News that the aim was to appeal to "low and mid-level" Taliban-
who are believed to be drawn into fighting through economic desperation.
"Now is not the time to talk to the ideologues at the top of the insurgency," he said.
"But there's a belief that with some real help - like providing land to cultivate or funds to set up independent businesses - we can persuade the foot soldiers at the bottom to give up their weapons."
Malvi Mohammed Ishaq Nizami
Any fighters joining the programme would have to renounce violence and none with links to al Qaeda would be accepted.
One prominent Taliban who has defected and joined the Reintegration programme, spoke to Sky in the Afghan capital, Kabul.
Malvi Mohammed Ishaq Nizami was a well-known Taliban activist, running the country's extremist radio and television station before the fall of the Taliban Government in 2001.
He fled into exile in Pakistan but was offered protection and security if he returned as part of the reconciliation process.
"There is no doubt it was very risky and dangerous," he said, "but I was born in this country and I grew up here and I felt I had a duty to do something for my country so I returned."
He is now engaged in trying to persuade others to join the reintegration programme.
"Money is not the main thing but it is a motivation, and if they are offered specific help which will change their lives, then they will switch sides.
"At the moment the reintegration pot is empty so it is very difficult."
Prince Ali Seraj
The international community has backed President Karzai's plan, but is is controversial.
Prince Ali Seraj runs the National Conciliation for Dialogue with the Tribesmen of Afghanistan - and he believes it is doomed.
"In a poor land like Afghanistan, if you make a statement like that you will have 30 million people lining up to get land and money.
"This is no cohesive group of people with a chief executive officer and a top man. There is no particular list of Taliban where you can say 'Ahmed, come over to us and we will pay you thirty dollars.'
"It is a pipe dream and wishful thinking and will create more problems. You might even have people joining the Taliban so they can be paid to switch."
Haji Ehsan and family
Haji Ehsan was among more than 80 families who saw their businesses reduced to ashes when militants stormed a shopping centre in Kabul last week.
He has been left with nothing - but has 10 children and six grandchildren to care for at home. "It is very hard to find the food for them," he says.
"I have lost my business but the children still need feeding and they are hungry.
"I am worrying a lot about the future because I have no money for anything and no business. I just hope the international community can help us.
"I know the Taliban offer money to people to fight - and this is it, when people have nothing, they will be forced to go out and join any side."
Source:sky.com/
London conference paves ways for reconciliation in Afghan: Chinese FM
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi has welcomed the move to find a way out of the conflict in Afghanistan. He says the London conference has played an important role in supporting the Afghan government.
Yang said, "The conference has provided a very important supporting role. What we are trying to do is to help the Afghan government to realize national reconciliation to ensure internal stability, to bring about economic and social progress and to make the international and regional framework more effective within which the Afghan government can further improve its capacity for better governance."
Yang Jiechi also asked the international community to help Afghanistan develop, and promised to support the work of the UN. He urged the Afghan government to work out better rules and regulations to uproot corruption. Nations have agreed that Afghan forces should aim to take the lead in providing security in a number of provinces by late 2010 or early 2011, opening the way for a reduction in foreign troops.
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi has welcomed the move to find a way
out of the conflict in Afghanistan. He says the London conference has
played an important role in supporting the Afghan government.
Source:english.cctv.com/
Yang said, "The conference has provided a very important supporting role. What we are trying to do is to help the Afghan government to realize national reconciliation to ensure internal stability, to bring about economic and social progress and to make the international and regional framework more effective within which the Afghan government can further improve its capacity for better governance."
Yang Jiechi also asked the international community to help Afghanistan develop, and promised to support the work of the UN. He urged the Afghan government to work out better rules and regulations to uproot corruption. Nations have agreed that Afghan forces should aim to take the lead in providing security in a number of provinces by late 2010 or early 2011, opening the way for a reduction in foreign troops.
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi has welcomed the move to find a way
out of the conflict in Afghanistan. He says the London conference has
played an important role in supporting the Afghan government.
Source:english.cctv.com/
Indonesia detains 26 Afghan migrants
Indonesian police said on Saturday they had detained 26 Afghan migrants who were in transit in the province of North Sumatra, possibly bound for Australia.
"The police found the migrants in Medan area today," said the provincial capital's police chief, Imam Margono.
"We are questioning them at the moment. Usually the migrants want to reach Australia," he said, adding that all the migrants were in good health.
People smugglers use Indonesia as a staging post for transporting Afghans, Sri Lankans and others to Australian
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has come under political pressure over the issue after a surge in arrivals via Indonesia last year.
Source:news.smh.com.au/
"The police found the migrants in Medan area today," said the provincial capital's police chief, Imam Margono.
"We are questioning them at the moment. Usually the migrants want to reach Australia," he said, adding that all the migrants were in good health.
People smugglers use Indonesia as a staging post for transporting Afghans, Sri Lankans and others to Australian
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has come under political pressure over the issue after a surge in arrivals via Indonesia last year.
Source:news.smh.com.au/
NATO chief sees Afghan mission boost at key meet
Writing in British newspaper the Times, Rasmussen said the time for reflection on the unstable country's future had passed and called on powers to chart the way ahead at the London meeting.
"The effort and sacrifice of our soldiers alone will not be enough to turn the corner in Afghanistan," he said.
"It will have to be matched by a clear political 'road map'. The London conference will help to set that out."
And he said this year was about putting plans into action to help Afghanistan stand on its own feet.
"2010 is about implementation: with clear Afghan plans to improve governance, a more focused civilian effort, and a substantially stronger military mission," wrote the head of the military alliance.
"There is new momentum in this mission and it is gathering pace. The London conference will give it another boost."
About 70 countries and organisations that give vital support to Afghanistan will attend the Thursday's meeting. They will be addressed by President Hamid Karzai who will seek to drum up support for a range of plans.
Rasmussen praised Karzai's projects as "realistic and achievable."
"I believe that at the London conference those plans will get the support they need, including the financial means," he said.
"Then it will be up to the Afghan Government."
The NATO chief further said he would be "pressuring the allies and our partners to contribute much more to the NATO training mission in Afghanistan."
The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), with contributions from 43 different countries, is part of a force of around 110,000 international soldiers fighting a fierce Taliban insurgency.
The United States has pledged a further 30,000 more troops this year.
Source:AFP
Group claims deadly Baghdad blast...Afghan forces shoot at each other
Baghdad
(AP) — There's been a claim of responsibility for a suicide car bombing at Baghdad's main crime lab that killed at least 22 people. An al-Qaida front group, the Islamic State of Iraq, says it pulled off the Tuesday bombing. The group has already said it carried out suicide car bombings at three hotels on Monday that claimed at least 41 lives. The group's statement appeared on militant Web sites today.
KABUL (AP) — A clash between a joint NATO-Afghan force and another Afghan unit in eastern Wardak province this morning killed four Afghan soldiers when they were hit by a NATO airstrike. The Afghan Defense Ministry has condemned the killing and wants those responsible to be brought to justice after an investigation.
MIR ALI, Pakistan
(AP)— Suspected U.S. missile strikes have been raining down on alleged Pakistani militant strongholds in unprecedented numbers since the Dec. 30 bombing against the CIA in Afghanistan. Intelligence officials say nine militants are dead in the latest, which hit a North Waziristan (vah-ZEER'-ih-stahn) compound and bunker.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Up to a foot of snow is forecast today along a line that follows the borders of Arkansas and Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky and into western North Carolina and Virginia. Several interstates through mountainous parts of North Carolina are shut down. It's the same storm that walloped northern Texas and Oklahoma.
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Police in Utah say a 70-year-old woman who allegedly shot and killed a Head Start teacher in the Salt Lake area knew her victim and called 911 herself after the shooting. Dead is 34-year-old single mother of two Tetyana Nikitina. Police say the alleged shooter had a concealed weapons permit.
Source:kvue.com/
(AP) — There's been a claim of responsibility for a suicide car bombing at Baghdad's main crime lab that killed at least 22 people. An al-Qaida front group, the Islamic State of Iraq, says it pulled off the Tuesday bombing. The group has already said it carried out suicide car bombings at three hotels on Monday that claimed at least 41 lives. The group's statement appeared on militant Web sites today.
KABUL (AP) — A clash between a joint NATO-Afghan force and another Afghan unit in eastern Wardak province this morning killed four Afghan soldiers when they were hit by a NATO airstrike. The Afghan Defense Ministry has condemned the killing and wants those responsible to be brought to justice after an investigation.
MIR ALI, Pakistan
(AP)— Suspected U.S. missile strikes have been raining down on alleged Pakistani militant strongholds in unprecedented numbers since the Dec. 30 bombing against the CIA in Afghanistan. Intelligence officials say nine militants are dead in the latest, which hit a North Waziristan (vah-ZEER'-ih-stahn) compound and bunker.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Up to a foot of snow is forecast today along a line that follows the borders of Arkansas and Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky and into western North Carolina and Virginia. Several interstates through mountainous parts of North Carolina are shut down. It's the same storm that walloped northern Texas and Oklahoma.
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Police in Utah say a 70-year-old woman who allegedly shot and killed a Head Start teacher in the Salt Lake area knew her victim and called 911 herself after the shooting. Dead is 34-year-old single mother of two Tetyana Nikitina. Police say the alleged shooter had a concealed weapons permit.
Source:kvue.com/
Qaeda would face pressure from Afghan deal-making
London
(Reuters) - Bringing the Taliban into reconciliation talks with the U.S.
-backed Afghan government would strain the insurgents' ties to al Qaeda and lift Western hopes of denying Osama bin Laden the refuge his hosts provide.
Any pressure on al Qaeda's link to its Pashtun protectors could also spur bin Laden's group to expand ties to militants in other Muslim nations out of self-preservation as much as ideology.
The Afghan government on Thursday invited the Taliban
to a peace council, expected early this year, raising the prospect that attempts at political deal-making could eventually move to the forefront of efforts to end the war in Afghanistan.
Analysts said the Afghan Taliban headed by Mullah Omar did not have much incentive yet to join any talks following a year of territorial gains, and its link to al Qaeda remained intact.
But its more nationalist long-term goals differed from those of al Qaeda, whose militant ideology makes violent jihad an obligation for all Muslims, and an eventual rift was possible.
That reality, combined with regular missile attacks by U.S. drones on its hideouts in the mountainous Afghanistan-pakistan
border area, meant al Qaeda was facing multiple pressures.
"Al Qaeda faces a big threat," Edwin Bakker, a senior research fellow at the Clingendael Institute in The Hague: "The Taliban is a local group able to strike local deals and that's a worry for al Qaeda."
A Western intelligence source said the prospect of such talks would put "a great deal of pressure on al Qaeda
Source:/in.reuters.com/
(Reuters) - Bringing the Taliban into reconciliation talks with the U.S.
-backed Afghan government would strain the insurgents' ties to al Qaeda and lift Western hopes of denying Osama bin Laden the refuge his hosts provide.
Any pressure on al Qaeda's link to its Pashtun protectors could also spur bin Laden's group to expand ties to militants in other Muslim nations out of self-preservation as much as ideology.
The Afghan government on Thursday invited the Taliban
to a peace council, expected early this year, raising the prospect that attempts at political deal-making could eventually move to the forefront of efforts to end the war in Afghanistan.
Analysts said the Afghan Taliban headed by Mullah Omar did not have much incentive yet to join any talks following a year of territorial gains, and its link to al Qaeda remained intact.
But its more nationalist long-term goals differed from those of al Qaeda, whose militant ideology makes violent jihad an obligation for all Muslims, and an eventual rift was possible.
That reality, combined with regular missile attacks by U.S. drones on its hideouts in the mountainous Afghanistan-pakistan
border area, meant al Qaeda was facing multiple pressures.
"Al Qaeda faces a big threat," Edwin Bakker, a senior research fellow at the Clingendael Institute in The Hague: "The Taliban is a local group able to strike local deals and that's a worry for al Qaeda."
A Western intelligence source said the prospect of such talks would put "a great deal of pressure on al Qaeda
Source:/in.reuters.com/
Rocket attacks fact of Afghan life
KANDAHAR AIR FIELD, Afghanistan -- A voice over the public address system echoes through the cold air: "Rocket attack, rocket attack."
The announcement sends soldiers, civilian workers and journalists scurrying into the concrete bunkers, where they wile away the time chatting, or just shivering in the dark, listening for the dull thud of more detonations outside.
Rocket attacks onto Kandahar Air Field rarely cause significant damage, although NATO said eight service members, four Romanians and four Bulgarians, were wounded here last Sunday.
Nonetheless, the rockets are an annoyance, serving as a reminder that nine years into the war, NATO cannot prevent attacks on its main military base in southern Afghanistan.
For those caught in the open, the procedure is standard duck and dive. Hit the floor, face down. Cover the eyes. Hope the rocket doesn't land too close for injury or worse.
To protect against such attacks, there are blast walls everywhere. Kandahar Air Field is a maze of the things, each creating its own little section. It's inconvenient. Walking from one place to another isn't just a matter of getting quickly from point A to point B. You must learn to go around obstacles.
It's easy to get lost in the sameness of it all: drab, dusty, gray.
But no one bears any grudges against the walls.
Rocket impacts send shrapnel flying everywhere. The deadly chunks of white-hot metal are more likely to slam into the walls, not rip through the head or body.
When the first rocket detonates, the drill is to get down, then scramble to the nearest bunker. Take a seat. Be ready to stay there awhile.
In the dining facilities, in the office spaces in headquarters, in tents and compounds all across the airfield, people hit the deck. Then they hustle to the bunkers.
The base is a big target. There are 22,000 troops and civilians here, from about 20 countries, and it is getting bigger all the time. Most of the attacks are meant more to harass than anything else. The base defenses are state-of-the art; the rockets aren't.
Source:washingtonpost.com/
The announcement sends soldiers, civilian workers and journalists scurrying into the concrete bunkers, where they wile away the time chatting, or just shivering in the dark, listening for the dull thud of more detonations outside.
Rocket attacks onto Kandahar Air Field rarely cause significant damage, although NATO said eight service members, four Romanians and four Bulgarians, were wounded here last Sunday.
Nonetheless, the rockets are an annoyance, serving as a reminder that nine years into the war, NATO cannot prevent attacks on its main military base in southern Afghanistan.
For those caught in the open, the procedure is standard duck and dive. Hit the floor, face down. Cover the eyes. Hope the rocket doesn't land too close for injury or worse.
To protect against such attacks, there are blast walls everywhere. Kandahar Air Field is a maze of the things, each creating its own little section. It's inconvenient. Walking from one place to another isn't just a matter of getting quickly from point A to point B. You must learn to go around obstacles.
It's easy to get lost in the sameness of it all: drab, dusty, gray.
But no one bears any grudges against the walls.
Rocket impacts send shrapnel flying everywhere. The deadly chunks of white-hot metal are more likely to slam into the walls, not rip through the head or body.
When the first rocket detonates, the drill is to get down, then scramble to the nearest bunker. Take a seat. Be ready to stay there awhile.
In the dining facilities, in the office spaces in headquarters, in tents and compounds all across the airfield, people hit the deck. Then they hustle to the bunkers.
The base is a big target. There are 22,000 troops and civilians here, from about 20 countries, and it is getting bigger all the time. Most of the attacks are meant more to harass than anything else. The base defenses are state-of-the art; the rockets aren't.
Source:washingtonpost.com/
Olympics, Haiti won't affect Afghan deployment: Senior general
Corporal Jean-Sebastien Giroux, a Flight Engineer for a CH-147 Chinook helicopter, provides security from the ramp during a flight mission. The Canadian Helicopter Force from the Joint Task Force Afghanistan Air Wing includes eight CH-146 Griffons where their primary role is to escort transport helicopter.Photograph by: Master Corporal Angela Abbey, CNDKANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan — Although Canadian troops were "ferociously busy," the commander of the army has concluded that the current humanitarian operation in Haiti
and security demands for the upcoming Olympics will not affect scheduled deployments to Afghanistan.
"My guys have just gone through all the math (and) there is no impact on the current rotation lengths, tour gates for the deployed forces or those going into Afghanistan between now and the end of the mission," Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said in a telephone interview Friday after returning to Ottawa, following a visit with nearly 4,000 Canadian troops at Fort Irwin, Calif., who are training to deploy to Afghanistan later this year.
Leslie's comments will put to rest speculation among the nearly 3,000 Canadian soldiers now in Afghanistan and those serving elsewhere about what effect the sudden dispatch of about 1,500 Canadian troops to Haiti this month to help earthquake survivors might have on a force that is being seriously stretched by the Afghan combat mission and a massive security operation for the Vancouver Olympics that involves another 4,000 Canadian troops.
Leslie confirmed that the Quebec-based 3rd Battalion, Royal 22nd Regiment, most of which is now in Haiti, was needed "back in Canada by the end of March, early April, so that they can start their training because they are on deck to go to Afghanistan in December" where they are to be the core element of a team of military trainers that mentors the Afghan army in Kandahar.
"If I have to replace 3 Van Doo with other folks, the government of Canada will let me know," Leslie said, adding that until now, the Canadian Forces have not received any new direction about this from the government.
While declining to say anything about what the army might be able to do to help in Haiti beyond early April, the general said there were "contingency plans for everything."
Despite the demands on the army, Leslie said morale remained so high that when he asked soldiers training in California this week whether any of them wanted to withdraw from their upcoming Afghan tour, the answer was unanimously "no."
Similarly, within hours of the Haiti mission being announced, the general said that so many soldiers wanted to go there that the army had to turn many of them down.
The decision to leave the Afghan plans as they were came after the army staff in Ottawa studied the troop requirements for Kandahar, Haiti and the Olympics and the complex business of synchronizing different levels of training for troops from across Canada going to Afghanistan with such crucial issues as the availability of ranges, ammunition and airlift.
Before the Haiti earthquake, Leslie informed troops slated to deploy to Afghanistan that their tours, which have mostly been either six or nine months in length, would all be extended by four or five weeks.
"The intent behind those tour extensions was to marry up the last of the fighting formations so that they terminate their combat activities as directed by Parliament at the end of June (2011)," the 'three-leaf' general said. "The last group going in will provide security elements to bring everything out of where it is now and centralize it with a remit to get it out by the end of December."
The chief of the army confirmed that the drawdown of forces in 2011 is to be protected by the Alberta-based 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. This was also the first Canadian unit to deploy to Afghanistan early in 2002. The battalion will begin its fourth Afghan tour when it deploys to Kandahar early in the summer of 2011.
"The 3 PPCLI folks' job will be 99 per cent security," Leslie said, "but let's not underestimate the dangers of the security force whose remit is to go out and provide escort for the multiple hundreds of vehicles and thousands of tons of equipment that has to go back to Kandahar and be packaged to be sent home."
Source:edmontonjournal.com
and security demands for the upcoming Olympics will not affect scheduled deployments to Afghanistan.
"My guys have just gone through all the math (and) there is no impact on the current rotation lengths, tour gates for the deployed forces or those going into Afghanistan between now and the end of the mission," Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said in a telephone interview Friday after returning to Ottawa, following a visit with nearly 4,000 Canadian troops at Fort Irwin, Calif., who are training to deploy to Afghanistan later this year.
Leslie's comments will put to rest speculation among the nearly 3,000 Canadian soldiers now in Afghanistan and those serving elsewhere about what effect the sudden dispatch of about 1,500 Canadian troops to Haiti this month to help earthquake survivors might have on a force that is being seriously stretched by the Afghan combat mission and a massive security operation for the Vancouver Olympics that involves another 4,000 Canadian troops.
Leslie confirmed that the Quebec-based 3rd Battalion, Royal 22nd Regiment, most of which is now in Haiti, was needed "back in Canada by the end of March, early April, so that they can start their training because they are on deck to go to Afghanistan in December" where they are to be the core element of a team of military trainers that mentors the Afghan army in Kandahar.
"If I have to replace 3 Van Doo with other folks, the government of Canada will let me know," Leslie said, adding that until now, the Canadian Forces have not received any new direction about this from the government.
While declining to say anything about what the army might be able to do to help in Haiti beyond early April, the general said there were "contingency plans for everything."
Despite the demands on the army, Leslie said morale remained so high that when he asked soldiers training in California this week whether any of them wanted to withdraw from their upcoming Afghan tour, the answer was unanimously "no."
Similarly, within hours of the Haiti mission being announced, the general said that so many soldiers wanted to go there that the army had to turn many of them down.
The decision to leave the Afghan plans as they were came after the army staff in Ottawa studied the troop requirements for Kandahar, Haiti and the Olympics and the complex business of synchronizing different levels of training for troops from across Canada going to Afghanistan with such crucial issues as the availability of ranges, ammunition and airlift.
Before the Haiti earthquake, Leslie informed troops slated to deploy to Afghanistan that their tours, which have mostly been either six or nine months in length, would all be extended by four or five weeks.
"The intent behind those tour extensions was to marry up the last of the fighting formations so that they terminate their combat activities as directed by Parliament at the end of June (2011)," the 'three-leaf' general said. "The last group going in will provide security elements to bring everything out of where it is now and centralize it with a remit to get it out by the end of December."
The chief of the army confirmed that the drawdown of forces in 2011 is to be protected by the Alberta-based 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. This was also the first Canadian unit to deploy to Afghanistan early in 2002. The battalion will begin its fourth Afghan tour when it deploys to Kandahar early in the summer of 2011.
"The 3 PPCLI folks' job will be 99 per cent security," Leslie said, "but let's not underestimate the dangers of the security force whose remit is to go out and provide escort for the multiple hundreds of vehicles and thousands of tons of equipment that has to go back to Kandahar and be packaged to be sent home."
Source:edmontonjournal.com
Diplomat's lawyer denies privileged info released in Afghan torture case
OTTAWA — Ottawa and the lawyer for diplomat-whistleblower Richard Colvin are locked in a war of words over the release of a letter that federal lawyers say contained privileged information.
Owen Rees, Colvin's Toronto-based attorney, filed a submission with the Military Police Complaints Commission on Friday that accuses Justice Department lawyers of failing to present all of the facts in the dispute.
The disagreement follows recent criticism of the federal government for holding back on paying the diplomat's legal bills, though the money eventually came through.
Last October, a letter was filed with the police commission, which is investigating what military cops knew or should have known about the alleged torture of prisoners in Afghan jails.
The letter, written by Colvin's former lawyer Lori Bokenfohr, suggested the federal government was trying to intimidate witnesses being interviewed by the police commission.
She quoted from a July 27, 2009, document sent to her client. The note from federal lawyers to all government witnesses stated their professional "reputations" could be on the line if they co-operated with commission interviewers who were described as "interrogators."
Government lawyers say the note was privileged and meant only for clients represented by the Justice Department.
Alain Prefontaine, the government's lead counsel, complained to the commission that in quoting from the document, Bokenfohr breached solicitor-client privilege. He said she had no authority to file it with the military watchdog agency.
Bokenfohr's intimidation complaints also ended up in public when the document was leaked to The Canadian Press.
Colvin's new attorney said in a submission Friday that the commission deserved to see the letter because it represents "an effort by the Government of Canada to discourage subjects and witnesses summoned by the Commission from participating in pre-hearing interviews."
Rees said it's "evidence of interference with the integrity" of the commission.
He also wrote that the government cherry-picked information to bolster its complaint, omitting key facts - such as Colvin notifying his supervisors at the Foreign Affairs Department that he intended to hire his own lawyer.
A copy of Rees' submission was obtained by The Canadian Press.
The police commission investigation is currently on hold, awaiting the federal government's appointment of a chairman. Public hearings into a complaint by two human-rights groups are expected to resume March 22.
The watchdog agency has fought a pitched battle with the federal government to investigate claims that the military should have known about possible torture.
Federal lawyers challenged the commission's jurisdiction in court and won a ruling that limits the agency's investigation.
Opposition parties accused the government of derailing the commission's investigation and decided to hold their own Parliamentary hearings.
It was before one of those meetings last November that Colvin testified he warned federal officials and military commanders about torture in Afghan jails, but was ignored.
Generals, senior federal officials and cabinet ministers denied the charges.
Colvin also claimed nearly all prisoners captured by Canadian troops in 2006 and 2007 were tortured by the Afghan intelligence service - something the government also disputed.
Source:AFP
Owen Rees, Colvin's Toronto-based attorney, filed a submission with the Military Police Complaints Commission on Friday that accuses Justice Department lawyers of failing to present all of the facts in the dispute.
The disagreement follows recent criticism of the federal government for holding back on paying the diplomat's legal bills, though the money eventually came through.
Last October, a letter was filed with the police commission, which is investigating what military cops knew or should have known about the alleged torture of prisoners in Afghan jails.
The letter, written by Colvin's former lawyer Lori Bokenfohr, suggested the federal government was trying to intimidate witnesses being interviewed by the police commission.
She quoted from a July 27, 2009, document sent to her client. The note from federal lawyers to all government witnesses stated their professional "reputations" could be on the line if they co-operated with commission interviewers who were described as "interrogators."
Government lawyers say the note was privileged and meant only for clients represented by the Justice Department.
Alain Prefontaine, the government's lead counsel, complained to the commission that in quoting from the document, Bokenfohr breached solicitor-client privilege. He said she had no authority to file it with the military watchdog agency.
Bokenfohr's intimidation complaints also ended up in public when the document was leaked to The Canadian Press.
Colvin's new attorney said in a submission Friday that the commission deserved to see the letter because it represents "an effort by the Government of Canada to discourage subjects and witnesses summoned by the Commission from participating in pre-hearing interviews."
Rees said it's "evidence of interference with the integrity" of the commission.
He also wrote that the government cherry-picked information to bolster its complaint, omitting key facts - such as Colvin notifying his supervisors at the Foreign Affairs Department that he intended to hire his own lawyer.
A copy of Rees' submission was obtained by The Canadian Press.
The police commission investigation is currently on hold, awaiting the federal government's appointment of a chairman. Public hearings into a complaint by two human-rights groups are expected to resume March 22.
The watchdog agency has fought a pitched battle with the federal government to investigate claims that the military should have known about possible torture.
Federal lawyers challenged the commission's jurisdiction in court and won a ruling that limits the agency's investigation.
Opposition parties accused the government of derailing the commission's investigation and decided to hold their own Parliamentary hearings.
It was before one of those meetings last November that Colvin testified he warned federal officials and military commanders about torture in Afghan jails, but was ignored.
Generals, senior federal officials and cabinet ministers denied the charges.
Colvin also claimed nearly all prisoners captured by Canadian troops in 2006 and 2007 were tortured by the Afghan intelligence service - something the government also disputed.
Source:AFP
US officers could be punished over Afghan battle: officials
Washington-
— A military investigation into a deadly battle in eastern Afghanistan could lead to punishment of up to three US Army officers amid allegations of "negligence," officials said on Friday.
US defence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AFP a Central Command investigation faults three officers, including a battalion commander, for their role and suggests possible disciplinary action.
Nine soldiers were killed and 27 wounded in the July 2008 battle when about 200 Taliban-
fighters broke through American lines and nearly overwhelmed a remote outpost in Wanat.
The battle in rugged terrain near the Pakistani-
border prompted allegations that commanding officers made careless decisions and raised wider questions about Washington's strategy in the Afghan war.
Commanders of the NATO-led force have since shifted their focus to deploying troops in more populated areas, concluding that missions in remote villages such as Wanat make little lasting impact in the fight against the Taliban.
The investigators did not find that major mistakes were made during the battle but focused on decisions and actions prior to the Taliban attack, US officials said.
The results of the probe have been handed over to Army Secretary John McHugh, his office said in a statement on Friday.
McHugh ordered the head of the largest Army command, General Charles Campbell, to "review the recommendations and take action as he deems appropriate with regard to Army personnel identified in the report."
A U.S.-
Army spokesman declined to comment on the details of the probe, which followed a previous army investigation.
"We remain in close contact with the families of our fallen from this battle, and they will be invited to a comprehensive briefing on the investigation following General Campbell's actions," McHugh said in the statement.
Family members of the US soldiers killed in Wanat had previously urged a thorough investigation into the circumstances around the battle.
US Senator Jim Webb of Virginia had also appealed for further examination of the battle after he learned of "allegations of negligence at senior levels in the chain of command."
One of the dead soldier's parents, retired army colonel David Brostrom, has reportedly voiced concerns that the outpost was poorly managed and senior officers had intelligence on an impending attack.
The Washington Post and other media have reported soldiers at Wanat were short of water and sandbags to fortify their positions on a rocky mountainside. Commanders had also withdrawn a drone aircraft tracking insurgents in the area for tasks elsewhere.
The battle at Wanat remains one of the deadliest for the Americans in the eight-year-old Afghan war.
Source:AFP
— A military investigation into a deadly battle in eastern Afghanistan could lead to punishment of up to three US Army officers amid allegations of "negligence," officials said on Friday.
US defence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AFP a Central Command investigation faults three officers, including a battalion commander, for their role and suggests possible disciplinary action.
Nine soldiers were killed and 27 wounded in the July 2008 battle when about 200 Taliban-
fighters broke through American lines and nearly overwhelmed a remote outpost in Wanat.
The battle in rugged terrain near the Pakistani-
border prompted allegations that commanding officers made careless decisions and raised wider questions about Washington's strategy in the Afghan war.
Commanders of the NATO-led force have since shifted their focus to deploying troops in more populated areas, concluding that missions in remote villages such as Wanat make little lasting impact in the fight against the Taliban.
The investigators did not find that major mistakes were made during the battle but focused on decisions and actions prior to the Taliban attack, US officials said.
The results of the probe have been handed over to Army Secretary John McHugh, his office said in a statement on Friday.
McHugh ordered the head of the largest Army command, General Charles Campbell, to "review the recommendations and take action as he deems appropriate with regard to Army personnel identified in the report."
A U.S.-
Army spokesman declined to comment on the details of the probe, which followed a previous army investigation.
"We remain in close contact with the families of our fallen from this battle, and they will be invited to a comprehensive briefing on the investigation following General Campbell's actions," McHugh said in the statement.
Family members of the US soldiers killed in Wanat had previously urged a thorough investigation into the circumstances around the battle.
US Senator Jim Webb of Virginia had also appealed for further examination of the battle after he learned of "allegations of negligence at senior levels in the chain of command."
One of the dead soldier's parents, retired army colonel David Brostrom, has reportedly voiced concerns that the outpost was poorly managed and senior officers had intelligence on an impending attack.
The Washington Post and other media have reported soldiers at Wanat were short of water and sandbags to fortify their positions on a rocky mountainside. Commanders had also withdrawn a drone aircraft tracking insurgents in the area for tasks elsewhere.
The battle at Wanat remains one of the deadliest for the Americans in the eight-year-old Afghan war.
Source:AFP
Video: Afghan prisoner issue creates political crisis in Canada
The Real News Network takes a look at Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to shut down Parliament, allegedly to avoid a no-confidence vote over the treatment of Afghan prisoners by the Canadian armed forces.
Source
Source
Walkom: What did the Afghan war accomplish?
The Afghan war, the war that never should have been fought, is coming to an end.
Along the way, it created much pain. Some 139 Canadian soldiers lost their lives, as did four Canadian civilians. More than 1,400 other soldiers in the NATO-led force were killed plus an unknown number of insurgents and thousands of Afghan civilians.
Thousands more were maimed and wounded.
The ripples from the war radiated across the globe in random and unexpected ways
Here in Canada, four young men embarked on a disastrous plan to protest the war by setting off bombs in downtown Toronto – setting in motion a series of events that left the foursome in jail and their families in tears.
But now the big powers have signalled that they've had enough. At a meeting in London on Thursday, the 42 countries of the NATO-led coalition – backed by 17 other nations with an interest in Afghanistan – agreed to start disengaging their forces by the end of this year.
They've also agreed to a last-ditch effort by Afghan president Hamid Karzai to forge a political compromise with the insurgent Taliban leadership.
True, there are also renewed promises to train the country's army and impossibly corrupt police force. The NATO powers and their friends insist that they are not abandoning the country and will continue to support the Afghan government for another 15 years.
But the bottom line is that the United States and its allies are getting out. They've had enough. The participants in this long-running civil war will have to work out something on their own.
At the very least, that would mean giving the Taliban a role in government. At the most, it would mean letting the civil war continue until all sides are exhausted or until one of the factions wins.
From the beginning, the Afghan war was a badly conceived enterprise. Ostensibly, the country was invaded for reasons of self-defence: The United States had been attacked; under international law, it was authorized to respond.
In fact, Afghanistan's then-Taliban government had no direct role in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington that precipitated this invasion. There is no evidence that the Taliban or its leader Mullah Omar knew of the planned attacks, authorized them or participated in them.
True, Al Qaeda, which now claims it was behind the attacks, had been operating from Afghanistan – as it operates from neighbouring Pakistan today.
But just as Pakistan's current government is unable or unwilling today to deal with Al Qaeda, so was Afghanistan's Taliban government in 2001.
When threatened with war unless he surrendered Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden, the best that Omar could come up with was an offer to send the terror chief to Pakistan.
In hindsight – given that this is where bin Laden appears to have ended up anyway – the U.S. might have been wiser to accept this offer and dispense with the war.
But it did not. Instead, with the support of Canada and other allies, it repeated the mistakes made by the Soviet Union two decades earlier. It enmeshed itself in a struggle it did not understand.
That struggle was the ongoing Afghan civil war, a complicated and chaotic dispute pitting ethnic group against ethnic group, city against countryside, tribal leaders against clerics, clan against clan and regional power bosses against one another – one in which all participants routinely changed sides and where betrayal was the norm.
The U.S. and its friends easily chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan's capital, Kabul.
And if, as Karzai suggested then, the victorious allies had made a deal with Taliban leader Omar, Western involvement in the war might have swiftly ended.
But the allies didn't do so. Now, with the Taliban's position far stronger than it was eight years ago, NATO has belatedly agreed to let Karzai convene a kind of constitutional convention that would include senior insurgent leaders.
The U.S. has even agreed to remove some of the Taliban's top leaders from the United Nations terror watch list, so they can attend this meeting. (Canadian Abousfian Abdelrazik may be bitterly amused by this. The Montreal resident, who made headlines after the Canadian government stranded him for six years in Sudan and who has never been charged with any crime, can't get his name off the UN list – meaning, among other things, that he can't open a bank account.)
All of this could be too late. Talks with the Taliban might have ended the conflict eight years ago. They might have worked even three years ago when New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton was mocked by members of the current Conservative government – and many in the media – for suggesting a negotiated solution to the war.
But now the Taliban know they need only wait. Barack Obama's baffling speech last month, in which the U.S. president simultaneously expanded the American war effort in Afghanistan and set a withdrawal date, demonstrated that his country was preparing to pack its bags and go home.
Thursday's London conference is a signal that the rest of the NATO-led coalition is planning to follow suit.
It's been a long war – longer (although far less deadly) than either World War I or II. It has also been pointless.
Canadians can pride themselves on the fact that their troops fought and died bravely. But we
Source:thestar.com/
Along the way, it created much pain. Some 139 Canadian soldiers lost their lives, as did four Canadian civilians. More than 1,400 other soldiers in the NATO-led force were killed plus an unknown number of insurgents and thousands of Afghan civilians.
Thousands more were maimed and wounded.
The ripples from the war radiated across the globe in random and unexpected ways
Here in Canada, four young men embarked on a disastrous plan to protest the war by setting off bombs in downtown Toronto – setting in motion a series of events that left the foursome in jail and their families in tears.
But now the big powers have signalled that they've had enough. At a meeting in London on Thursday, the 42 countries of the NATO-led coalition – backed by 17 other nations with an interest in Afghanistan – agreed to start disengaging their forces by the end of this year.
They've also agreed to a last-ditch effort by Afghan president Hamid Karzai to forge a political compromise with the insurgent Taliban leadership.
True, there are also renewed promises to train the country's army and impossibly corrupt police force. The NATO powers and their friends insist that they are not abandoning the country and will continue to support the Afghan government for another 15 years.
But the bottom line is that the United States and its allies are getting out. They've had enough. The participants in this long-running civil war will have to work out something on their own.
At the very least, that would mean giving the Taliban a role in government. At the most, it would mean letting the civil war continue until all sides are exhausted or until one of the factions wins.
From the beginning, the Afghan war was a badly conceived enterprise. Ostensibly, the country was invaded for reasons of self-defence: The United States had been attacked; under international law, it was authorized to respond.
In fact, Afghanistan's then-Taliban government had no direct role in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington that precipitated this invasion. There is no evidence that the Taliban or its leader Mullah Omar knew of the planned attacks, authorized them or participated in them.
True, Al Qaeda, which now claims it was behind the attacks, had been operating from Afghanistan – as it operates from neighbouring Pakistan today.
But just as Pakistan's current government is unable or unwilling today to deal with Al Qaeda, so was Afghanistan's Taliban government in 2001.
When threatened with war unless he surrendered Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden, the best that Omar could come up with was an offer to send the terror chief to Pakistan.
In hindsight – given that this is where bin Laden appears to have ended up anyway – the U.S. might have been wiser to accept this offer and dispense with the war.
But it did not. Instead, with the support of Canada and other allies, it repeated the mistakes made by the Soviet Union two decades earlier. It enmeshed itself in a struggle it did not understand.
That struggle was the ongoing Afghan civil war, a complicated and chaotic dispute pitting ethnic group against ethnic group, city against countryside, tribal leaders against clerics, clan against clan and regional power bosses against one another – one in which all participants routinely changed sides and where betrayal was the norm.
The U.S. and its friends easily chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan's capital, Kabul.
And if, as Karzai suggested then, the victorious allies had made a deal with Taliban leader Omar, Western involvement in the war might have swiftly ended.
But the allies didn't do so. Now, with the Taliban's position far stronger than it was eight years ago, NATO has belatedly agreed to let Karzai convene a kind of constitutional convention that would include senior insurgent leaders.
The U.S. has even agreed to remove some of the Taliban's top leaders from the United Nations terror watch list, so they can attend this meeting. (Canadian Abousfian Abdelrazik may be bitterly amused by this. The Montreal resident, who made headlines after the Canadian government stranded him for six years in Sudan and who has never been charged with any crime, can't get his name off the UN list – meaning, among other things, that he can't open a bank account.)
All of this could be too late. Talks with the Taliban might have ended the conflict eight years ago. They might have worked even three years ago when New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton was mocked by members of the current Conservative government – and many in the media – for suggesting a negotiated solution to the war.
But now the Taliban know they need only wait. Barack Obama's baffling speech last month, in which the U.S. president simultaneously expanded the American war effort in Afghanistan and set a withdrawal date, demonstrated that his country was preparing to pack its bags and go home.
Thursday's London conference is a signal that the rest of the NATO-led coalition is planning to follow suit.
It's been a long war – longer (although far less deadly) than either World War I or II. It has also been pointless.
Canadians can pride themselves on the fact that their troops fought and died bravely. But we
Source:thestar.com/
Canadian-trained police force seen as key to Afghan recovery.
KABUL - If the mission commanded by the most senior Canadian soldier in Afghanistan fails, most observers agree there is a strong possibility that the war against the Taliban will be lost.
Maj.-Gen. Mike Ward of Ottawa has the daunting task of rapidly reforming and expanding Afghanistan's much-maligned national police, which now numbers approximately 97,000. Yet the target set last week by the Afghan government, the UN and NATO is to have 134,000 police on the beat by the end of 2011.
Even if everything works out perfectly, getting the police from here to there on such a tight timetable is a herculean undertaking.
The goal is to enlist about 2,100 fresh recruits for training every month. However, this is only slightly more than the number of police officers (19 per cent) who quit every year, although attrition has been trending downward recently.
Moreover, tens of thousands of police officers already on the rolls must be thoroughly re-trained to improve their fighting and crime-fighting skills and to acquaint them with issues such as human rights.
Corruption on the police force, as almost everywhere in Afghanistan, is pervasive. Most recruits are illiterate. Many of those expected to enforce the law are themselves drug users.
``The ANP is still a very fragile institution and it carries the highest consequence of failure,'' Ward said during a visit to the Afghan Police Academy in Kabul. ``That is why there is an emerging recognition that we must focus our effort on the police.''
Source:windsorstar.com
Maj.-Gen. Mike Ward of Ottawa has the daunting task of rapidly reforming and expanding Afghanistan's much-maligned national police, which now numbers approximately 97,000. Yet the target set last week by the Afghan government, the UN and NATO is to have 134,000 police on the beat by the end of 2011.
Even if everything works out perfectly, getting the police from here to there on such a tight timetable is a herculean undertaking.
The goal is to enlist about 2,100 fresh recruits for training every month. However, this is only slightly more than the number of police officers (19 per cent) who quit every year, although attrition has been trending downward recently.
Moreover, tens of thousands of police officers already on the rolls must be thoroughly re-trained to improve their fighting and crime-fighting skills and to acquaint them with issues such as human rights.
Corruption on the police force, as almost everywhere in Afghanistan, is pervasive. Most recruits are illiterate. Many of those expected to enforce the law are themselves drug users.
``The ANP is still a very fragile institution and it carries the highest consequence of failure,'' Ward said during a visit to the Afghan Police Academy in Kabul. ``That is why there is an emerging recognition that we must focus our effort on the police.''
Source:windsorstar.com
NATO, Kazakhstan agree on Afghan supply route
NATO says it has reached agreement with Kazakhstan-
to open a key new supply route for the international force in Afghanistan.
Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says the link from Europe to Afghanistan, via Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, will offer an alternative to the alliance's main logistics chain through pakistan
. This has come under repeated militant attack in the past.
Although the land and air route through Russia and Central Asia has been used in the past by individual NATO nations, the alliance as a whole did not have permanent rights to cross Kazakh territory.
The statement comes as the military heads of NATO's 27 member nations meet in Brussels with the defense chiefs of two dozen partner nations, including Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, to discuss the progress in the war.
Source:lasvegassun.com/
to open a key new supply route for the international force in Afghanistan.
Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says the link from Europe to Afghanistan, via Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, will offer an alternative to the alliance's main logistics chain through pakistan
. This has come under repeated militant attack in the past.
Although the land and air route through Russia and Central Asia has been used in the past by individual NATO nations, the alliance as a whole did not have permanent rights to cross Kazakh territory.
The statement comes as the military heads of NATO's 27 member nations meet in Brussels with the defense chiefs of two dozen partner nations, including Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, to discuss the progress in the war.
Source:lasvegassun.com/
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Indian role in Afghanistan needs to be spelt out: US
The Pentagon press secretary said that US Defence Secretary Robert Gates had discussed the Afghan situation with Indian leaders, including the issues that concerned Pakistan, when he visited New Delhi last week.
“We did discuss Afghanistan with the government in Delhi and discussed the need for the Indian government to be as transparent as they can be with the Pakistani government about their activities in Afghanistan,” he said.
Asked if the United States would like India to train Afghan security forces, Mr Morrell said that the international community was not contemplating any such role for India.
“They clearly have contributed much in the monetary sense, financial support to the government in Afghanistan and that is greatly appreciated by us, by the Afghans and, I think, by the international community,” said the Pentagon spokesman.
“But beyond that, I think, you saw him (Secretary Gates) speak to this talk of perhaps the Indians providing training to Afghan forces. And that is not something that we, that I think, anybody is pursuing at this point.”
Secretary Gates told reporters in New Delhi last week that India and Pakistan had deep suspicious about each other’s activities in Afghanistan and stressed the need for “full transparency”.
Pakistan complains that India is using its influence in Afghanistan to stir trouble in Balochistan and had also provided weapons and financial assistance to the militants in Fata.
Islamabad also sees India’s strong presence in Afghanistan as a threat to its own security, fearing that New Delhi is trying to bring pressure on Pakistan from both its eastern and western borders.
Initially, US policy-makers ignored Islamabad’s complaints. Instead, they continued to remind Pakistani officials that the militants, and not India, were their main enemy and they should focus on fighting the militants.
But attitudes in Washington began to change after a realisation that US efforts to persuade Pakistan to stop fearing India had not worked. In recent congressional hearings such senior US military officials as Admiral Mike Mullen and Gen David Petraeus admitted that Washington needed to be receptive to Islamabad’s concerns.
In a report sent to the White House in September, Gen Stanley McChrystal, who commands US and Nato force in Afghanistan, warned that “Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan” and “the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian”.
The general also warned that “increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter measures”.
The McChrystal report also noted: “Stability in Pakistan is essential, not only in its own right, but also to enable progress in Afghanistan. While the existence of safe havens in Pakistan doesn’t guarantee ISAF failure, Afghanistan does require Pakistani cooperation and action against violent militancy, particularly against those groups active in Afghanistan.”
Tags: india,afghanistan,US,pakistan,white house,Stanley McChrystal,nato
Source:dawn.com/
NATO, Russia, Pakistan top brass back new Afghan approach
BRUSSELS: Top officers from NATO, Russia and Pakistan gave unanimous backing on Wednesday to
the new international strategy in Afghanistan, the head of the alliance’s military committee said.
“There was a feeling in the room that we are getting it right,” Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola told reporters after talks with military chiefs from more than 60 countries.
Di Paola said Russian army chief Nikolai Makarov and his Pakistani counterpart General Ashfaq Kayani had underlined that NATO’s success in defeating the insurgency would have important repercussions for their nations.
Di Paola said Makarov told the meeting Russia had a great interest in seeing NATO succeed.
He said Kayani had agreed with much the same thing as Makarov that “we have an even greater interest than you to have a peaceful, stable Afghanistan”.
Di Paola said Kayani was “incredibly in tune” with US General Stanley McChrystal’s approach to putting the
protection of Afghan civilians at the heart of the international strategy.
Kayani also spoke of “the same comprehensive approach to the problem of FATA”, Di Paola said. afp
Source:dailytimes.com.pk/
the new international strategy in Afghanistan, the head of the alliance’s military committee said.
“There was a feeling in the room that we are getting it right,” Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola told reporters after talks with military chiefs from more than 60 countries.
Di Paola said Russian army chief Nikolai Makarov and his Pakistani counterpart General Ashfaq Kayani had underlined that NATO’s success in defeating the insurgency would have important repercussions for their nations.
Di Paola said Makarov told the meeting Russia had a great interest in seeing NATO succeed.
He said Kayani had agreed with much the same thing as Makarov that “we have an even greater interest than you to have a peaceful, stable Afghanistan”.
Di Paola said Kayani was “incredibly in tune” with US General Stanley McChrystal’s approach to putting the
protection of Afghan civilians at the heart of the international strategy.
Kayani also spoke of “the same comprehensive approach to the problem of FATA”, Di Paola said. afp
Source:dailytimes.com.pk/
Aafia defence witnesses take stand today
Prosecution’s final witness again said that Dr Aafia grabbed the chief warrant officer’s M-4 rifle, and fired at US officials at the Afghan National Police headquarters on July 18, 2008.
Dr Aafia was not removed from the court on Tuesday, but right before the judge dismissed jurors for lunch, she got up and declared, “That’s it! I’m going to boycott. I’m not coming here again. Bye, Bye””
After a closing statement by the prosecution, Dr Aafia’s defence team is expected to start putting its witnesses on the stand on Wednesday. It will also show a two-hour video to the jurors in support of their case that Dr Aafia is not guilty of any wrongdoing.
According to court officials, the process would be completed by Friday and the jury would go into deliberations next week to prepare the verdict.
US District Judge Richard Berman told the court after eight hours of proceedings that the trial was very much on schedule. The prosecution has produced 18 witnesses since Jan 19, when the trial began.
The defence team sent a letter to Judge Berman on Tuesday requesting him not ask Dr Aafia to testify on her own behalf because of her “severe mental illness.”
Defence lawyer Linda Moreno said the defendant “refused to speak with us” and runs the “risk of prejudicing herself in the eyes of the jurors” if she took the stand.
“We feel it is our duty under relevant ethical rules to take protective action to safeguard her interests,” the letter said.
The defence team’s move came after the judge had rejected a prosecution request to ban Dr Aafia coming to the trial. At that stage, the judge said that she had the right to remain at her trial.
He also said that every possible effort had been made to ensure a fair trial, citing various steps. But Dr Aafia retorted: “I respectfully would like to say that you are lying.”
The defendant is accused of shooting at US Army and FBI agents in Afghanistan two years ago. No one was hit in that incident, but a US Army officer shot her twice in the stomach.
Her family spokesman Tina Foster also backed the move by three lawyers retained by the Pakistan government, saying they’re also worried about Dr Aafia’s mental state.
“The Aafia whom we know and love is not the same rational and focussed Aafia who we see in this courtroom,” said her brother Muhammad Siddiqui.
The judge is expected to rule on whether she can testify before the defence begins presenting its case to the jury on Wednesday.
During the proceedings, defence lawyer again brought out contradictions in the testimonies offered by prosecution witnesses during cross-examinations. An Afghan interpreter working with the US Army in Afghanistan was flown in all the way here to give his version of the July 18, 2008, shooting incident in Ghazni.
Source:dawn.com/
Four in five Germans oppose Afghanistan troop hike: poll
BERLIN: Nearly 80 percent of Germans oppose Berlin’s plans to hike the number of troops in Afghanistan, according to a poll released Wednesday on the eve of a major international conference. Four out of five Germans said they disagreed with a stronger military role for Berlin in Afghanistan, the survey by the independent polling institute Forsa indicated. Even among supporters of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Union, 77 percent said they objected to adding soldiers to the 4,300-strong force now in the war-ravaged country. Among members of the junior partner in the ruling centre-right coalition, the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP), the rate was even higher, at 86 percent. The survey revealed very shallow support for the Afghan mission. “When asked whether they personally supported the German soldiers’ deployment, nearly half (49 percent) said no,” Forsa said. In a troubling sign for Merkel, who pledged Tuesday to send another 500 troops to Afghanistan with a reserve force of 350 soldiers and begin a withdrawal in 2011, 36 percent of conservative voters and nearly half of FDP voters said they opposed the mission. Forsa found the number of Germans calling for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan to be “surprisingly high” at 32 percent. Around one in four — 24 percent — called for pullout by the end of 2011, 14 percent wanted a deadline for the end of the mission in 2015 while 25 percent said German troops should remain in Afghanistan longer if still needed. In Germany, where the horrors of World War II still colour the debate on military missions, all parties in parliament with the exception of the far-left Die Linke support the eight-year-old Afghan deployment to varying degrees. The poll was conducted a week before Merkel’s announcement to boost troop levels, on January 20-21, among 1,002 German citizens with a margin of error of three points. A conference in London Thursday on mapping out the way forward in Afghanistan will bring together foreign ministers from 60 countries including US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. afp
Source:dailytimes.com.pk/
Source:dailytimes.com.pk/
Working as partners in Afghanistan
This is an important week for Afghanistan. It is also an important week for the regional governments and wider international community that are determined to help the Afghan government and people achieve political stability and economic prosperity. Turkey and the United Kingdom are due to play a key role, working together as we do on so many other issues.
The terrorist attacks in Kabul on Jan. 18 were another appalling illustration of why we must remain committed to this effort. No political aim can justify such violence. The peaceful majority of the Afghan people should not be subjected to this sort of atrocity. They want our help. They need our help. They deserve our help.
Turkey has a lot to offer. The country has deep and longstanding ties with Afghanistan. Its support to Afghanistan today is substantial, including development assistance; strengthening stability through its Provincial Reconstruction Teams; training and capacity building; and political support through backing dialogue between Afghanistan and its partners. Turkey makes a real, very positive difference.
As a major regional player, Turkey of course has a strong national interest in Afghanistan’s stability, security and prosperity. The British government strongly supports Turkey’s efforts in coordinating and strengthening regional support for Afghanistan at this crucial time. The trilateral (Afghanistan/Pakistan/Turkey) summit and regional conference Turkey hosted in Istanbul this week rightly put Afghanistan's regional partners at the forefront of the international effort to support Afghanistan. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has been invited to the conference as an observer. This will enable him to ensure that the international conference on Afghanistan hosted jointly in London on Jan. 28 by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Afghanistan’s President Karzai, and the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, complements the regional commitment and the Afghan government's own efforts to develop Afghanistan’s security, development and governance in President Karzai's second term.
As Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said when he visited London recently, this set of interlinked conferences will send a strong international message of commitment that we are together in supporting the Afghan people and their future.
We must not lose sight of the fact that this effort is not just about Afghanistan. The implications go much wider. Building Afghan stability is central to a long-term vision for the region and for the international community, in which extremism, violence, intolerance and criminality have no place.
We in the U.K. welcome and support the work being done by Afghanistan and Pakistan – aided by Turkey and the international community – to tackle these threats. Terrorism bred in the instability of the lawless border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan has already hit other countries hard, including the U.K. Criminality seeps across borders, with the drug trade and its associated blights of organized crime, exploitation and violence undermining our societies and the rule of law. In a globalized world, all problems are shared problems. We simply cannot ignore what happens in Afghanistan.
This month’s conferences in Istanbul and London mark a new stage as the international community shifts toward a more supportive and better coordinated role in Afghanistan. We recognize the importance of the task. We don't underestimate the challenges. We are determined to stay until the job is done; until Afghanistan can secure itself; and until the Afghan forces are ready to take full control. We hope this day will come soon, and everything we do – including this week's conferences – is designed to help reach that point. Afghanistan, fortunately, has many friends. The U.K. is proud to be in the front rank, despite the cost and sacrifice involved, and to be working as partners with our friends in Turkey and in the region.
Source:hurriyetdailynews.com/
The terrorist attacks in Kabul on Jan. 18 were another appalling illustration of why we must remain committed to this effort. No political aim can justify such violence. The peaceful majority of the Afghan people should not be subjected to this sort of atrocity. They want our help. They need our help. They deserve our help.
Turkey has a lot to offer. The country has deep and longstanding ties with Afghanistan. Its support to Afghanistan today is substantial, including development assistance; strengthening stability through its Provincial Reconstruction Teams; training and capacity building; and political support through backing dialogue between Afghanistan and its partners. Turkey makes a real, very positive difference.
As a major regional player, Turkey of course has a strong national interest in Afghanistan’s stability, security and prosperity. The British government strongly supports Turkey’s efforts in coordinating and strengthening regional support for Afghanistan at this crucial time. The trilateral (Afghanistan/Pakistan/Turkey) summit and regional conference Turkey hosted in Istanbul this week rightly put Afghanistan's regional partners at the forefront of the international effort to support Afghanistan. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has been invited to the conference as an observer. This will enable him to ensure that the international conference on Afghanistan hosted jointly in London on Jan. 28 by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Afghanistan’s President Karzai, and the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, complements the regional commitment and the Afghan government's own efforts to develop Afghanistan’s security, development and governance in President Karzai's second term.
As Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said when he visited London recently, this set of interlinked conferences will send a strong international message of commitment that we are together in supporting the Afghan people and their future.
We must not lose sight of the fact that this effort is not just about Afghanistan. The implications go much wider. Building Afghan stability is central to a long-term vision for the region and for the international community, in which extremism, violence, intolerance and criminality have no place.
We in the U.K. welcome and support the work being done by Afghanistan and Pakistan – aided by Turkey and the international community – to tackle these threats. Terrorism bred in the instability of the lawless border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan has already hit other countries hard, including the U.K. Criminality seeps across borders, with the drug trade and its associated blights of organized crime, exploitation and violence undermining our societies and the rule of law. In a globalized world, all problems are shared problems. We simply cannot ignore what happens in Afghanistan.
This month’s conferences in Istanbul and London mark a new stage as the international community shifts toward a more supportive and better coordinated role in Afghanistan. We recognize the importance of the task. We don't underestimate the challenges. We are determined to stay until the job is done; until Afghanistan can secure itself; and until the Afghan forces are ready to take full control. We hope this day will come soon, and everything we do – including this week's conferences – is designed to help reach that point. Afghanistan, fortunately, has many friends. The U.K. is proud to be in the front rank, despite the cost and sacrifice involved, and to be working as partners with our friends in Turkey and in the region.
Source:hurriyetdailynews.com/
Afghan forces need 5 years: Karzai
LONDON – Afghanistan needs five years to take charge of it own security, President Hamid Karzai said in London Wednesday as countries gathered for key talks on tackling a Taliban insurgency.
The country's international allies, which have around 110,000 troops tackling the Taliban, are expected to push at Thursday's talks for Afghan forces to take over security duties as rapidly as possible.
Karzai will use the conference to urge his partners to fund a 500-million-dollar programme to persuade moderate Taliban to stop fighting in exchange for jobs and security -- a plan that has been winning support.
"We will be trying our very best to be ready to defend the major part of our country from two to three years and when we reach the five-year end point, that's when we would be leading," Karzai at a meeting with students in London.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who also answered questions from the students, said the Afghan security forces were expected to grow to number about 300,000 in two years.
The Afghan army currently numbers about 100,000 men, with the police force at around 90,000.
Brown also voiced support for Karzai's programme for reconciliation with moderate Taliban, to which Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tuesday Germany plans to offer 50 million euros ($70 million) over five years.
"To weaken the Taliban, you divide them and you offer those people who are prepared to renounce violence... a way out. And that is something that we will do and something that President Karzai wants to do," Brown said.
Karzai reiterated that such an offer would only be made to Taliban who are not members of the Al-Qaeda network.
"We will continue to seek peace in Afghanistan using all instruments that are available to us," Karzai said.
US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, told reporters in London that Washington would not accept talks with Al-Qaeda.
"There is an American red line, and it is Al-Qaeda. There cannot be any negotiation if they don't renounce Al-Qaeda because those people cannot be negotiated with," he said.
Merkel has said Thursday's meeting was crucial to determining the success or failure of the mission in Afghanistan.
"In London we are talking about nothing less than setting the future course, a course that I am convinced will determine the success or failure of our mission," Merkel told parliament after talks with Karzai on Wednesday.
But the Taliban dismissed it as a waste of time and regional power Iran also said it would be pointless and would not attend.
The only solution to the conflict is for all "invading forces" to leave immediately, the Taliban said in an emailed statement.
"The London conference is in fact aimed at extending the invasion of Afghanistan by occupying forces... (It) is just a waste of time," it said.
Karzai said in Berlin Wednesday that Afghanistan, where violence has reached record levels eight years into the costly international effort to defeat the Islamists, did not want to be an endless burden on its allies.
"Afghanistan wants to soon be defending its own territory, its own people with Afghan means," he said.
The head of NATO's military committee said in Brussels meanwhile that top officers from the Western alliance, Russia and Pakistan had given unanimous backing to the international strategy in Afghanistan.
"There was a feeling in the room that we are getting it right," Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola told reporters following talks with chiefs of military staff from more than 60 countries.
The United Nations mission in Afghanistan said it was pleased the reintegration of Taliban and reconciliation had taken centre stage in the run-up to Thursday's conference.
"We have always said a military effort alone cannot succeed and there is a clear need for a peace process to begin," spokesman Aleem Siddique told AFP.
Source:abs-cbnnews.com/
The country's international allies, which have around 110,000 troops tackling the Taliban, are expected to push at Thursday's talks for Afghan forces to take over security duties as rapidly as possible.
Karzai will use the conference to urge his partners to fund a 500-million-dollar programme to persuade moderate Taliban to stop fighting in exchange for jobs and security -- a plan that has been winning support.
"We will be trying our very best to be ready to defend the major part of our country from two to three years and when we reach the five-year end point, that's when we would be leading," Karzai at a meeting with students in London.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who also answered questions from the students, said the Afghan security forces were expected to grow to number about 300,000 in two years.
The Afghan army currently numbers about 100,000 men, with the police force at around 90,000.
Brown also voiced support for Karzai's programme for reconciliation with moderate Taliban, to which Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tuesday Germany plans to offer 50 million euros ($70 million) over five years.
"To weaken the Taliban, you divide them and you offer those people who are prepared to renounce violence... a way out. And that is something that we will do and something that President Karzai wants to do," Brown said.
Karzai reiterated that such an offer would only be made to Taliban who are not members of the Al-Qaeda network.
"We will continue to seek peace in Afghanistan using all instruments that are available to us," Karzai said.
US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, told reporters in London that Washington would not accept talks with Al-Qaeda.
"There is an American red line, and it is Al-Qaeda. There cannot be any negotiation if they don't renounce Al-Qaeda because those people cannot be negotiated with," he said.
Merkel has said Thursday's meeting was crucial to determining the success or failure of the mission in Afghanistan.
"In London we are talking about nothing less than setting the future course, a course that I am convinced will determine the success or failure of our mission," Merkel told parliament after talks with Karzai on Wednesday.
But the Taliban dismissed it as a waste of time and regional power Iran also said it would be pointless and would not attend.
The only solution to the conflict is for all "invading forces" to leave immediately, the Taliban said in an emailed statement.
"The London conference is in fact aimed at extending the invasion of Afghanistan by occupying forces... (It) is just a waste of time," it said.
Karzai said in Berlin Wednesday that Afghanistan, where violence has reached record levels eight years into the costly international effort to defeat the Islamists, did not want to be an endless burden on its allies.
"Afghanistan wants to soon be defending its own territory, its own people with Afghan means," he said.
The head of NATO's military committee said in Brussels meanwhile that top officers from the Western alliance, Russia and Pakistan had given unanimous backing to the international strategy in Afghanistan.
"There was a feeling in the room that we are getting it right," Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola told reporters following talks with chiefs of military staff from more than 60 countries.
The United Nations mission in Afghanistan said it was pleased the reintegration of Taliban and reconciliation had taken centre stage in the run-up to Thursday's conference.
"We have always said a military effort alone cannot succeed and there is a clear need for a peace process to begin," spokesman Aleem Siddique told AFP.
Source:abs-cbnnews.com/
NATO mission in Afghanistan?
NATO is an inter-governmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on April 4, 1949. The organisation constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party. ‘Attack on one will be considered attack on all’. It was an exclusively Anglo-US military alliance with the express objectives to contain the communism in Europe and to provide security guarantee to its member countries. But with the integration of Soviet Union there was a serious doubt on its role and functions. In the post-cold war era with the independence of Central Asian Republics the NATO’s role redefined and a global NATO started coming into effect. But as compared to post-cold war era NATO expanded its military role into economic, social and cultural instrument of conflict resolution. Now it assumed peacekeeping role in some places together with reconstruction work by developing inter-governmental and non-governmental partnership. The first time in NATO’s history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area. So on April 16, 2003 NATO agreed to take command of the International security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. NATO’s main role in Afghanistan is to assist the Afghan Government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance. It does this predominately through its UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force. NATO’s ISAF is helping to bring the Afghan National Army up to operating capability and also providing support to the Afghan National Police. In 2004 and 2005 ISAF started expanding its mission. Today ISAF comprises 36 nations of nearly 35,000 troops out of which 20,000 are only US forces. Now US want to reduce the troops but it cannot be possible because of high risk combat. ISAF is not a UN force but it is organised under the UN Security Council. ISAF led by European countries volunteered by such countires as UK, Turkey, Germany and Netherlands etc. NATO has set up Provisional Reconstruction Team (PRT) across Afghanistan, which has combined military and civilian personnel to coordinate security and reconstruction efforts for the designated provincial area. Reconstruction and security sectors are not up to the level; behind this there are some other reasons which are lack of communication between civilian and military and NATO countries have failed to fulfill the financial needs of PRTs that’s why it failed in its mission. Under the Bonn agreement, concluded in December 2001, US had taken the responsibility of developing army for post-Taliban Afghanistan. The target goal for ANA as established in Afghanistan National Compact (ANC) will provide 62,000 fully trained and well equipped servicemen in March 2009, and to be fully operational by March, 2011. NATO faced heavy loses in Afghanistan in the shape of suicide attacks, bomb blasts, kidnapping, opium cultivation and direct fighting etc. Afghanistan produced 92% of the world’s opium, 80,000 tons in 2007 with this opium’s money Afghans started militancy against foreign troops. NATO also faced many challenges like insufficient troops that are not enough to control the rising insurgency in Afghanistan. Afghan Population is also too much in order to control the situation that’s why ISAF forces realised the need of air power. Due to NATO’s air strikes many innocent people were killed in it that’s why people are against NATO’s forces and its mission. NATO’s performance in Afghanistan is mixed sort of; in some field it is successive. NATO has not been able to tackle the basic problems of poverty but has been able to control sectarian conflicts in Afghanistan. NATO has failed in its primary mission of securing and reconstructing Afghanistan. Many reasons of mission’s failure as explained by scholars are: Shortage of troops, Afghanistan’s difficult mountainous terrain, local sympathizers of the Taliban, support to Taliban from Pakistan. But I disagree with these scholars. If with these lack of troops US started operation in Afghanistan then why they could not succeed in its primary mission of reconstructing Afghanistan and if they attacked Afghanistan in its difficult mountainous terrain with advanced technology why they failed? Support to Taliban from Pakistan is the reason of NATO’s failure but I think it is not true because Pakistan is not supporting Taliban but suppose that Pakistan is supporting Taliban then Pakistan is only one but NATO has also alliances and their support then why it has failed. US leaders blame Pakistan that it is not doing enough to prevent Taliban regrouping in its tribal regions. Since the last year Pakistan has started operation in its tribal region then why NATO mission in Afghanistan is failing. NATO forces are more involved in offensive military operations rather than reconstruction efforts. NATO is not fair and sincere in its primary mission of reconstructing and securing. This mission is seen as a US mission rather than NATO. It is difficult to see how NATO can succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan unless they are fair and sincere in its mission of reconstructing and securing Afghanistan. There is a need of better coordination between NATO and US forces. There is also need of NATO’s enlargement of forces they should include other alliace’s forces to control the insurgency. NATO should invest money in the form of establishing industries. NATO”S forces should place great emphasis on reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan. They should pay attention on building of roads, dams, bridges, schools, hospitals, power houses. Now no one can dominate the world through military power there is dire need of soft power so NATO should try to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. They should try to enhance its image in Afghanistan through public diplomacy. NATO needs to convince all of its members to lift respective restrictions imposed on their operational role in Afghanistan. NATO-ISAF command in Afghanistan also has to realise that the battle against Taliban and their extremist affiliates cannot be won by military means alone. NATO should negotiate with those Taliban who are willing to compromise for the sake of legitimate political and economic benefits. Afghanistan’s NATO-led security sector needs reforms, including the expansion of Afghan National army and police and realisation of Afghan reconstruction goals, depend upon how quickly the manifold causes of Afghanistan insecurity dilemma are addressed effectively. NATO cannot win in Afghanistan, unless this reality is understood and action is taken promptly, the future of Afghanistan is bleak, with regional and global impact. NATO forces should focus on a year-round campaign aimed at winning the support of the people, by protecting them from insurgency coercion and intimidation. NATO would require patience and commitment to handle the problems. Counter-insurgency campaigns are won not by body counts, but by the absence of killing and satisfying citizens’ hopes. The Commander of ISAF argues that success in Afghanistan is possible if all members of NATO sign up to the goals of the mission and commit to the political and economic dimensions of security and stability. While the reconstruction of Afghanistan remains achievable, NATO and the international community must coordinate their efforts, or risk strategic failure.
Source:thefrontierpost.com/
Source:thefrontierpost.com/
NATO Contractor Is Sentenced to Death in Afghanistan
KABUL, Afghanistan — An Australian security contractor working for an American company has been sentenced to death by an Afghan court for murdering a colleague and then trying to cover up the crime by staging a Taliban ambush.
It is the first time a foreigner working with the NATO coalition has been sentenced to death in Afghanistan.
The contractor, Robert Langdon, a 38-year-old who worked for a security company called Four Horsemen International, was convicted of murder last October and sentenced to death, but the authorities kept quiet about the case.
It became public on Wednesday after an appeals court upheld the sentence and, in response, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia said his government would ask for clemency. An Australian Foreign Ministry statement said the country would make a “high level” and “vigorous” lobbying effort to at least commute the death sentence, but a spokesman for the Afghan Foreign Ministry, Zahir Faqiri, said that “so far we have not received any official protest from the government of Australia.”
The appeals court judge, Abdul Salam Qazizada, said the cold-blooded nature of the attack and its cover-up justified the sentence.
He said that the victim, who used the single name Karim, was the team leader of a group of Afghan security guards working for Mr. Langdon, who was in charge of escorting a coalition supply convoy from Kabul to Ghazni, 85 miles southeast, in May 2009.
The convoy was delayed while passing through Wardak Province, where the Taliban are active, and Mr. Karim objected that they should not continue after dark. The two men quarreled. Mr. Karim told Mr. Langdon “that the enemy will use the dark against us and will attack us,” the judge said.
“Robert Langdon opened the door of the car where Karim was sitting and shot him in the head,” Judge Qazizada said.
Mr. Langdon had claimed that the victim had reached for a pistol.
“He reached across, and I am ex-military, so it was like bang-bang-bang-bang,” Mr. Langdon testified. “I didn’t have time to think.” Mr. Langdon shot him four times in the head and body.
The judge said he believed the testimony of other witnesses that Mr. Karim was unarmed at the time. In an effort to cover up the crime, the judge said, Mr. Langdon detonated a hand grenade on the body “and ordered his men to fire in the air to fake a Taliban firefight.”
A Nepalese employee on the convoy reported the shooting to Afghan authorities after the convoy’s return to Kabul. Mr. Langdon had immediately gone to his bank and withdrawn all his money and was about to board a flight for Dubai when Afghan police officers arrested him, the judge said.
“I’m convinced that he’s a murderer,” Judge Qazizada said. “We gave him what he deserved.”
Mr. Langdon had pleaded not guilty on grounds of diminished capacity.
Under Afghan law, if the family of the victim agrees, the family of a murderer can pay compensation, known as blood money, to avert the death penalty, though the killer would normally still remain in prison. On Wednesday, Judge Qazizada said it was too early to consider any such settlement.
But a newspaper, The Australian, reported that lawyers for Mr. Langdon’s family were negotiating with Mr. Karim’s family.
Afghanistan’s Supreme Court will review the appeals court’s decision. If it is upheld, the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, can consider clemency.
Australia has 1,500 troops as part of the American-led NATO coalition here. It has no death penalty and normally strongly opposes capital punishment for its citizens abroad.
Sign in to RecommendNext Article in World (14 of 26) » A version of this article appeared in print on January 28, 2010, on page A10 of the New York edition.
Source:nytimes.com/
It is the first time a foreigner working with the NATO coalition has been sentenced to death in Afghanistan.
The contractor, Robert Langdon, a 38-year-old who worked for a security company called Four Horsemen International, was convicted of murder last October and sentenced to death, but the authorities kept quiet about the case.
It became public on Wednesday after an appeals court upheld the sentence and, in response, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia said his government would ask for clemency. An Australian Foreign Ministry statement said the country would make a “high level” and “vigorous” lobbying effort to at least commute the death sentence, but a spokesman for the Afghan Foreign Ministry, Zahir Faqiri, said that “so far we have not received any official protest from the government of Australia.”
The appeals court judge, Abdul Salam Qazizada, said the cold-blooded nature of the attack and its cover-up justified the sentence.
He said that the victim, who used the single name Karim, was the team leader of a group of Afghan security guards working for Mr. Langdon, who was in charge of escorting a coalition supply convoy from Kabul to Ghazni, 85 miles southeast, in May 2009.
The convoy was delayed while passing through Wardak Province, where the Taliban are active, and Mr. Karim objected that they should not continue after dark. The two men quarreled. Mr. Karim told Mr. Langdon “that the enemy will use the dark against us and will attack us,” the judge said.
“Robert Langdon opened the door of the car where Karim was sitting and shot him in the head,” Judge Qazizada said.
Mr. Langdon had claimed that the victim had reached for a pistol.
“He reached across, and I am ex-military, so it was like bang-bang-bang-bang,” Mr. Langdon testified. “I didn’t have time to think.” Mr. Langdon shot him four times in the head and body.
The judge said he believed the testimony of other witnesses that Mr. Karim was unarmed at the time. In an effort to cover up the crime, the judge said, Mr. Langdon detonated a hand grenade on the body “and ordered his men to fire in the air to fake a Taliban firefight.”
A Nepalese employee on the convoy reported the shooting to Afghan authorities after the convoy’s return to Kabul. Mr. Langdon had immediately gone to his bank and withdrawn all his money and was about to board a flight for Dubai when Afghan police officers arrested him, the judge said.
“I’m convinced that he’s a murderer,” Judge Qazizada said. “We gave him what he deserved.”
Mr. Langdon had pleaded not guilty on grounds of diminished capacity.
Under Afghan law, if the family of the victim agrees, the family of a murderer can pay compensation, known as blood money, to avert the death penalty, though the killer would normally still remain in prison. On Wednesday, Judge Qazizada said it was too early to consider any such settlement.
But a newspaper, The Australian, reported that lawyers for Mr. Langdon’s family were negotiating with Mr. Karim’s family.
Afghanistan’s Supreme Court will review the appeals court’s decision. If it is upheld, the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, can consider clemency.
Australia has 1,500 troops as part of the American-led NATO coalition here. It has no death penalty and normally strongly opposes capital punishment for its citizens abroad.
Sign in to RecommendNext Article in World (14 of 26) » A version of this article appeared in print on January 28, 2010, on page A10 of the New York edition.
Source:nytimes.com/
Afghan Tribe Vows to Fight Taliban, for U.S. Aid
JALALABAD, Afghanistan — The leaders of one of the largest Pashtun tribes in a Taliban stronghold said Wednesday that they had agreed to support the American-backed government, battle insurgents and burn down the home of any Afghan who harbored Taliban guerrillas.
Elders from the Shinwari tribe, which represents about 400,000 people in southeastern Afghanistan, also pledged to send at least one military-age male in each family to the Afghan Army or the police in the event of a Taliban attack.
In exchange for their support, American commanders agreed to channel $1 million in development projects directly to the tribal leaders and bypass the local Afghan government, which is widely seen as corrupt.
“The Taliban have been trying to destroy our tribe, and they are taking money from us, and they are taking our sons to fight,” said Malik Niaz, a Shinwari elder. “If they defy us now, we will defeat them.”
The pact appears to be the first in which an entire Pashtun tribe has declared war on Taliban insurgents.
But the agreement, though promising, is fragile at best. Afghan loyalties are historically fluid, and in the past the government has been unable to prevent Taliban retaliation. The agreement may also be hard to replicate, since it arose from a specific local dispute and economic tensions with the Taliban.
While the Shinwaris are now united against the Taliban, if payments from the Americans falter or animosities flare with the Afghan government, the tribe could switch back just as quickly.
Moreover, it is not clear that the elders, whatever their intentions, will be able to command the loyalties of their own members. After 30 years of incessant warfare, many of the traditional societal networks in this country have been weakened or destroyed.
In many places, the Taliban are stronger than the tribes themselves.
Indeed, in the past, Taliban gunmen have killed or threatened tribal leaders who defied them, and the American military and the Afghan government have largely been unable to protect them.
Many of the Shinwari elders said Wednesday that they had already received death threats. The brother of one elder, a district governor, has already been killed.
The pact is but one plank of a carrot-and-stick strategy toward the Taliban as the United States pours more troops into Afghanistan in the hopes of inflicting setbacks that might make the Taliban more willing to negotiate. While the Americans are rewarding tribes who confront the Taliban, on Thursday the Afghan government is unveiling its latest plan to woo back both Taliban foot soldiers and their leaders.
That plan hopes to compensate for past failures that were underfinanced, lacked the buy-in of allies and did not prevent revenge killings.
The new plan has two tracks: to reintegrate Taliban fighters into Afghan society and to allow Taliban leaders to play a political role in Afghanistan, a far more politically charged idea.
The Karzai government wants countries attending an international conference in London on Thursday to back its plan and agree to finance it — at least initially.
In exchange for laying down arms and agreeing to abide by the Afghan Constitution, Taliban fighters would be guaranteed jobs and an enforceable amnesty.
The pact with the Shinwari tribe would complement the reconciliation effort. It echoes a similar phenomenon that unfolded in the Iraq war beginning in late 2006, which ultimately contributed to a substantial drop in violence there. In Iraq, tribal leaders from the country’s Sunni minority rebelled against Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia and joined forces with the Americans. The phenomenon was known as the Sunni Awakening.
But no one expects to be able to duplicate the scale of the Iraq effort, because in many parts of Afghanistan the Taliban have not only intimidated or killed local tribal leaders but insinuated themselves into the very fabric of the hierarchies of the tribes.
By contrast, in this part of Afghanistan tribal loyalties are strong and the tension between the Shinwaris and the Taliban longstanding. The conflict came to a head last July, when two Shinwari elders — Mr. Niaz and Malik Usman — insisted that a local Taliban commander named Kona stay away from a group of Afghan engineers who were building a dike in their valley. When Kona’s men kidnapped two of the engineers, the Shinwari elders decided they had had enough.
In a confrontation that followed, members from the two Shinwari subtribes killed a senior Taliban commander who had come from Pakistan and chased Kona back across the border. After that, Mr. Niaz and Mr. Usman set up a local militia to keep the Taliban out of the valley, called Momand.
“The whole tribe was with me,” Mr. Niaz said in an interview in November. “The Taliban came to kill me, and instead we killed them.”
Source:nytimes.com/
Elders from the Shinwari tribe, which represents about 400,000 people in southeastern Afghanistan, also pledged to send at least one military-age male in each family to the Afghan Army or the police in the event of a Taliban attack.
In exchange for their support, American commanders agreed to channel $1 million in development projects directly to the tribal leaders and bypass the local Afghan government, which is widely seen as corrupt.
“The Taliban have been trying to destroy our tribe, and they are taking money from us, and they are taking our sons to fight,” said Malik Niaz, a Shinwari elder. “If they defy us now, we will defeat them.”
The pact appears to be the first in which an entire Pashtun tribe has declared war on Taliban insurgents.
But the agreement, though promising, is fragile at best. Afghan loyalties are historically fluid, and in the past the government has been unable to prevent Taliban retaliation. The agreement may also be hard to replicate, since it arose from a specific local dispute and economic tensions with the Taliban.
While the Shinwaris are now united against the Taliban, if payments from the Americans falter or animosities flare with the Afghan government, the tribe could switch back just as quickly.
Moreover, it is not clear that the elders, whatever their intentions, will be able to command the loyalties of their own members. After 30 years of incessant warfare, many of the traditional societal networks in this country have been weakened or destroyed.
In many places, the Taliban are stronger than the tribes themselves.
Indeed, in the past, Taliban gunmen have killed or threatened tribal leaders who defied them, and the American military and the Afghan government have largely been unable to protect them.
Many of the Shinwari elders said Wednesday that they had already received death threats. The brother of one elder, a district governor, has already been killed.
The pact is but one plank of a carrot-and-stick strategy toward the Taliban as the United States pours more troops into Afghanistan in the hopes of inflicting setbacks that might make the Taliban more willing to negotiate. While the Americans are rewarding tribes who confront the Taliban, on Thursday the Afghan government is unveiling its latest plan to woo back both Taliban foot soldiers and their leaders.
That plan hopes to compensate for past failures that were underfinanced, lacked the buy-in of allies and did not prevent revenge killings.
The new plan has two tracks: to reintegrate Taliban fighters into Afghan society and to allow Taliban leaders to play a political role in Afghanistan, a far more politically charged idea.
The Karzai government wants countries attending an international conference in London on Thursday to back its plan and agree to finance it — at least initially.
In exchange for laying down arms and agreeing to abide by the Afghan Constitution, Taliban fighters would be guaranteed jobs and an enforceable amnesty.
The pact with the Shinwari tribe would complement the reconciliation effort. It echoes a similar phenomenon that unfolded in the Iraq war beginning in late 2006, which ultimately contributed to a substantial drop in violence there. In Iraq, tribal leaders from the country’s Sunni minority rebelled against Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia and joined forces with the Americans. The phenomenon was known as the Sunni Awakening.
But no one expects to be able to duplicate the scale of the Iraq effort, because in many parts of Afghanistan the Taliban have not only intimidated or killed local tribal leaders but insinuated themselves into the very fabric of the hierarchies of the tribes.
By contrast, in this part of Afghanistan tribal loyalties are strong and the tension between the Shinwaris and the Taliban longstanding. The conflict came to a head last July, when two Shinwari elders — Mr. Niaz and Malik Usman — insisted that a local Taliban commander named Kona stay away from a group of Afghan engineers who were building a dike in their valley. When Kona’s men kidnapped two of the engineers, the Shinwari elders decided they had had enough.
In a confrontation that followed, members from the two Shinwari subtribes killed a senior Taliban commander who had come from Pakistan and chased Kona back across the border. After that, Mr. Niaz and Mr. Usman set up a local militia to keep the Taliban out of the valley, called Momand.
“The whole tribe was with me,” Mr. Niaz said in an interview in November. “The Taliban came to kill me, and instead we killed them.”
Source:nytimes.com/
Swedish diplomat named top UN envoy to Afghanistan
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. chief named a veteran Swedish diplomat on Wednesday to serve as the next top U.N. official in Afghanistan, a day ahead of a 60-nation conference in London on the nation's future.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that Staffan de Mistura, the former U.N. representative in Iraq, will succeed Kai Eide of Norway and become the top United Nations envoy in Afghanistan starting on March 1.
"He has been working in many difficult and dangerous posts," Ban said of de Mistura in an AP interview. "He has a wealth of experience and wisdom, and he knows a lot of leadership in Afghanistan. Therefore, I'm sure that he can be a very effective leader in Afghanistan."
Ban's announcement was timed to precede Thursday's conference to discuss a plan for getting Western countries out of Afghanistan. U.S. and NATO forces have been taking increasing casualties from a resurgent Taliban, and are trying to shift more of the burden onto Afghans by speeding up the training of the Afghan army and paramilitary national police.
Much of the focus will be on a $500 million plan to provide jobs and other economic incentives to Taliban fighters and lure them away from the insurgency - a goal that Ban said he supports.
"They should renounce their positions. They should lay down their arms and they should cut their ties with al-Qaida," Ban said. "When they are ready to show their genuine commitment to work together with the Afghan government, for their own society, then I think the international community should favorably consider (them)."
The United Nations on Wednesday revoked asset-freezing orders and travel bans on five former Taliban officials, which Afghan President Hamid Karzai had been pressing for as part of his effort to draw them back into the fold. None of the five is believed active in the Taliban.
Western officials said the reintegration plan would not involve cash handouts to insurgents, but be focused on providing housing and jobs in the nation's growing security forces.
Eide's rocky two-year tenure overseeing the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan was marked by a fraud-marred national election and a deadly Taliban attack on U.N. employees. The U.N. mission suffered from a pre-dawn assault Oct. 28 on a Kabul guesthouse where dozens of U.N. staffers lived. Five U.N. workers were among those killed in the attack, which prompted the U.N. to relocate hundreds of employees, some outside Afghanistan.
Eide's stewardship also was tarnished by allegations from his American deputy, Peter Galbraith, that he was not bullish enough in curbing fraud in the August presidential election. Karzai was declared the winner three months later after his last remaining challenger dropped out of a runoff.
Eide has said that the controversy over the election was not linked to his decision to leave.
The challenge for de Mistura will be to restructure the civilian side of the international mission during the Obama administration's military strategy of sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Eide has proposed better coordinating the civilian effort under the U.N. umbrella.
The U.N. chief said he expects the conference to provide "a clearer picture for support of the Afghan government" in exactly how it plans to help bring peace, stability and economic development there.
"At the same time we expect the new Afghan government to come out with a strong compact for governance, addressing corruption, and promoting political reconciliation among its people," Ban said. "In the longer term, the basic principle is we need to give more authority to the Afghan government."
Source:washingtonpost.com/
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that Staffan de Mistura, the former U.N. representative in Iraq, will succeed Kai Eide of Norway and become the top United Nations envoy in Afghanistan starting on March 1.
"He has been working in many difficult and dangerous posts," Ban said of de Mistura in an AP interview. "He has a wealth of experience and wisdom, and he knows a lot of leadership in Afghanistan. Therefore, I'm sure that he can be a very effective leader in Afghanistan."
Ban's announcement was timed to precede Thursday's conference to discuss a plan for getting Western countries out of Afghanistan. U.S. and NATO forces have been taking increasing casualties from a resurgent Taliban, and are trying to shift more of the burden onto Afghans by speeding up the training of the Afghan army and paramilitary national police.
Much of the focus will be on a $500 million plan to provide jobs and other economic incentives to Taliban fighters and lure them away from the insurgency - a goal that Ban said he supports.
"They should renounce their positions. They should lay down their arms and they should cut their ties with al-Qaida," Ban said. "When they are ready to show their genuine commitment to work together with the Afghan government, for their own society, then I think the international community should favorably consider (them)."
The United Nations on Wednesday revoked asset-freezing orders and travel bans on five former Taliban officials, which Afghan President Hamid Karzai had been pressing for as part of his effort to draw them back into the fold. None of the five is believed active in the Taliban.
Western officials said the reintegration plan would not involve cash handouts to insurgents, but be focused on providing housing and jobs in the nation's growing security forces.
Eide's rocky two-year tenure overseeing the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan was marked by a fraud-marred national election and a deadly Taliban attack on U.N. employees. The U.N. mission suffered from a pre-dawn assault Oct. 28 on a Kabul guesthouse where dozens of U.N. staffers lived. Five U.N. workers were among those killed in the attack, which prompted the U.N. to relocate hundreds of employees, some outside Afghanistan.
Eide's stewardship also was tarnished by allegations from his American deputy, Peter Galbraith, that he was not bullish enough in curbing fraud in the August presidential election. Karzai was declared the winner three months later after his last remaining challenger dropped out of a runoff.
Eide has said that the controversy over the election was not linked to his decision to leave.
The challenge for de Mistura will be to restructure the civilian side of the international mission during the Obama administration's military strategy of sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Eide has proposed better coordinating the civilian effort under the U.N. umbrella.
The U.N. chief said he expects the conference to provide "a clearer picture for support of the Afghan government" in exactly how it plans to help bring peace, stability and economic development there.
"At the same time we expect the new Afghan government to come out with a strong compact for governance, addressing corruption, and promoting political reconciliation among its people," Ban said. "In the longer term, the basic principle is we need to give more authority to the Afghan government."
Source:washingtonpost.com/
Secretary Robert Gates visit to Islamabad
Robert Gates the US Secretary of Defense during his two day visit to Islamabad in three years had to face a volley of unpalatable remarks, and questions, from journalists and military officers, which according to New York Times made him look like a punching bag. His statements in New Delhi had angered Pakistani, and were interpreted, that he was goading India to continue hanging the sword of democle on Pakistan neck. He did not pacify India war rhetoric and made no secret that in case of another terror attack India reserved the right of military aggression on Pakistan. He said that New Delhi may loose patience with Pakistan after any repeat of Mumbai style attacks. In Delhi he had endorsed Manmohan Singh soft repeated threat of war against Pakistan, if a repeat terrorist attack is not stopped by Islamabad. He trumpeted the Indian line, which implies that terrorists are under the command and control of Pakistan. This is astonishing considering that Pakistan is the foremost target of terrorist suicide bombings and terror attacks.
As a long time CIA top official in the past, and US Secretary of Defense under George Bush and now under Barack Obama, Gates should have shown restraint in his pro-India utterances. No one in Obama Administration has been mired in Pakistan for as long as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, yet is insensitive of Pakistani feelings. He regretted the trust deficit between Washington and Islamabad, and tried to soothe the country gnawing rancor towards the United States.
Some US officials take Pakistan for granted as a boot boy, which could be ordered around to do their bidding. And the questions hurled at Mr Gates by journalists and military officials reflected the Pakistani resentment. New York times reports that during a closed door session with the students and faculty at the National Defense University at Islamabad, a military officer asked, Are you with us or against us? Mr Gates could hardly miss that the Pakistani officer was mimicking former President George Bush. Stunned Secretary Gates replied, Off course we are with you. That indeed was the essence and the message Mr Gates wanted Pakistani to accept. Robert Gates was fully informed about the resentment in Pakistan over US drone attacks and the surge after terrorist attack on the CIA base at Khost. He brushed aside questions on the subject.
In his meetings with Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar and COAS General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, he urged immediate military action in North Waziristan, elimination of the so called Quetta Shura and Haqqani Jehadists. It is good that the Pakistani Army indicated that it would not launch any new offensives against extremists in the mountainous region of North Waziristan for at least six months to one year. NY Times has interpreted this as, pushing back calls by the United States to root out militants staging attacks along the Afghan border. Army spokesman Major General Ather Abbas described Pakistan policy and position without mincing words. This was an unqualified NO to American diktat. Mr. Gates had urged the Defense Minister and top Pakistani military officials to pursue extremist groups along and across the border, and that ignoring one part of this cancer would threaten the entire country stability. But Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, told American reporters at the General Headquarters of the Pakistani Army in Rawalpindi that Pakistan had to contain the extremist groups fully in South Waziristan, in the wake of offensives last year against the insurgents. General Abbas said it would be six months to a year before any new operation began. Reports are surfacing that Pakistani authorities are negotiating peace with Afghanistan based Taliban, and there may be no further military operations in FATA. General Ather Abbas bluntly said that the situation was not as black and white as Mr. Gates described. It was annoying the way Robert Gates was talking to us. He was badly briefed and had not done his home work on the issue of US Drone bombings, which had killed a few militants, but thousands of innocent Pushtun men, women and children. How come he was all sugar and honey in New Delhi, and was handing over hard to digest bitter pills in Islamabad? He did not utter a word about Kashmiri right for self determination; implying that the US supports Indian military occupation of Jammu and Kashmir.
Mr. Gates sounded a theme similar to his remarks to reporters, saying that Pakistan had to do more to fight the multiple extremist groups on its Afghan border. Pakistani political leadership, the Foreign Office, the Pakistani media and Pakistani military is sick of the dictation, to do more. Pakistan knows what it needs to do. He pressed Pakistan to root out the Afghan Taliban leadership, the Quetta Shura, which has found refuge in Pakistan Baluchistan province outside the tribal areas. Pakistan silence on this allegation has been misunderstood by Washington.
According to New York Times, American officials are increasingly frustrated that while the Pakistanis have launched offensives against the Pakistani Taliban, they have so far not pursued the Afghan Taliban and another extremist group on their border, the Haqqani network, whose fighters pose a threat to American forces. Maintaining a distinction between some violent extremist groups and others is counterproductive, Mr. Gates stated. Only by pressuring all of these groups on both sides of the border will Afghanistan and Pakistan be able to rid themselves of this scourge for good. Pakistan Foreign Office and the Pakistani political leadership need to come up front, and respond to such provocative allegations forcefully. But while Pakistan is fully engaged in rooting out terrorists on its territory, it is astonishing for Mr Gates to state that Pakistan should pressure such groups across on Afghanistan soil. There is urgent need for closest cooperation between Islamabad and Kabul to discuss and develop joint plans for the elimination of terrorism on both sides of the common border.
NATO, US, Afghan and Pakistani military chiefs have been meeting and discussing such matters from time to time. What they discuss must surface, to enable the media and the public to assess, that all stakeholders are serious to rid the two countries from the menace of terrorism. NATO and the US military do not have a strategy to bring peace to Afghanistan. Military power has failed in Afghanistan, and is not likely to succeed in the future.
India has entered Afghanistan as a spoiler. The Pushtun who are in a majority (65%) detest India. Hamid Karzai has embraced India and Delhi is hugging him in pursuit of its vested interests; one of which is continued turmoil in Pakistan. Karzai wioth US approval plans to handover training of the Afghan armed forces to India. This will have serious implications for Pakistan. India is funding the terrorists and is supplying them with weapons. Robert Gates should have been told that Indian threat of pre-emptive short war in case of another terrorist attack is immoral and unjustified. Pakistan has failed to stop terrorist attacks inside its cities and towns, and is paying a very high price in blood and tears. How on earth can Pakistan stop terrorist criminals crossing into India. India has three million troops-1.5 million Indian Army and 1.5 million para-military. Much of Indo-Pakistan border has been fenced with electrified barbed wire and mines. India needs to cooperate with Pakistan to fight terrorism. Indian jingoism, anti-Pakistan propaganda and threats of war is not the solution. In Delhi, Robert Gates instead of appeasement and flattery, should have spoken out firmly that India should stop brow beating Pakistan; should extend a hand of friendship, to enable both the governments to cooperate on the vital issue of end to terror.
Source:pakobserver.net/
As a long time CIA top official in the past, and US Secretary of Defense under George Bush and now under Barack Obama, Gates should have shown restraint in his pro-India utterances. No one in Obama Administration has been mired in Pakistan for as long as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, yet is insensitive of Pakistani feelings. He regretted the trust deficit between Washington and Islamabad, and tried to soothe the country gnawing rancor towards the United States.
Some US officials take Pakistan for granted as a boot boy, which could be ordered around to do their bidding. And the questions hurled at Mr Gates by journalists and military officials reflected the Pakistani resentment. New York times reports that during a closed door session with the students and faculty at the National Defense University at Islamabad, a military officer asked, Are you with us or against us? Mr Gates could hardly miss that the Pakistani officer was mimicking former President George Bush. Stunned Secretary Gates replied, Off course we are with you. That indeed was the essence and the message Mr Gates wanted Pakistani to accept. Robert Gates was fully informed about the resentment in Pakistan over US drone attacks and the surge after terrorist attack on the CIA base at Khost. He brushed aside questions on the subject.
In his meetings with Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar and COAS General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, he urged immediate military action in North Waziristan, elimination of the so called Quetta Shura and Haqqani Jehadists. It is good that the Pakistani Army indicated that it would not launch any new offensives against extremists in the mountainous region of North Waziristan for at least six months to one year. NY Times has interpreted this as, pushing back calls by the United States to root out militants staging attacks along the Afghan border. Army spokesman Major General Ather Abbas described Pakistan policy and position without mincing words. This was an unqualified NO to American diktat. Mr. Gates had urged the Defense Minister and top Pakistani military officials to pursue extremist groups along and across the border, and that ignoring one part of this cancer would threaten the entire country stability. But Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, told American reporters at the General Headquarters of the Pakistani Army in Rawalpindi that Pakistan had to contain the extremist groups fully in South Waziristan, in the wake of offensives last year against the insurgents. General Abbas said it would be six months to a year before any new operation began. Reports are surfacing that Pakistani authorities are negotiating peace with Afghanistan based Taliban, and there may be no further military operations in FATA. General Ather Abbas bluntly said that the situation was not as black and white as Mr. Gates described. It was annoying the way Robert Gates was talking to us. He was badly briefed and had not done his home work on the issue of US Drone bombings, which had killed a few militants, but thousands of innocent Pushtun men, women and children. How come he was all sugar and honey in New Delhi, and was handing over hard to digest bitter pills in Islamabad? He did not utter a word about Kashmiri right for self determination; implying that the US supports Indian military occupation of Jammu and Kashmir.
Mr. Gates sounded a theme similar to his remarks to reporters, saying that Pakistan had to do more to fight the multiple extremist groups on its Afghan border. Pakistani political leadership, the Foreign Office, the Pakistani media and Pakistani military is sick of the dictation, to do more. Pakistan knows what it needs to do. He pressed Pakistan to root out the Afghan Taliban leadership, the Quetta Shura, which has found refuge in Pakistan Baluchistan province outside the tribal areas. Pakistan silence on this allegation has been misunderstood by Washington.
According to New York Times, American officials are increasingly frustrated that while the Pakistanis have launched offensives against the Pakistani Taliban, they have so far not pursued the Afghan Taliban and another extremist group on their border, the Haqqani network, whose fighters pose a threat to American forces. Maintaining a distinction between some violent extremist groups and others is counterproductive, Mr. Gates stated. Only by pressuring all of these groups on both sides of the border will Afghanistan and Pakistan be able to rid themselves of this scourge for good. Pakistan Foreign Office and the Pakistani political leadership need to come up front, and respond to such provocative allegations forcefully. But while Pakistan is fully engaged in rooting out terrorists on its territory, it is astonishing for Mr Gates to state that Pakistan should pressure such groups across on Afghanistan soil. There is urgent need for closest cooperation between Islamabad and Kabul to discuss and develop joint plans for the elimination of terrorism on both sides of the common border.
NATO, US, Afghan and Pakistani military chiefs have been meeting and discussing such matters from time to time. What they discuss must surface, to enable the media and the public to assess, that all stakeholders are serious to rid the two countries from the menace of terrorism. NATO and the US military do not have a strategy to bring peace to Afghanistan. Military power has failed in Afghanistan, and is not likely to succeed in the future.
India has entered Afghanistan as a spoiler. The Pushtun who are in a majority (65%) detest India. Hamid Karzai has embraced India and Delhi is hugging him in pursuit of its vested interests; one of which is continued turmoil in Pakistan. Karzai wioth US approval plans to handover training of the Afghan armed forces to India. This will have serious implications for Pakistan. India is funding the terrorists and is supplying them with weapons. Robert Gates should have been told that Indian threat of pre-emptive short war in case of another terrorist attack is immoral and unjustified. Pakistan has failed to stop terrorist attacks inside its cities and towns, and is paying a very high price in blood and tears. How on earth can Pakistan stop terrorist criminals crossing into India. India has three million troops-1.5 million Indian Army and 1.5 million para-military. Much of Indo-Pakistan border has been fenced with electrified barbed wire and mines. India needs to cooperate with Pakistan to fight terrorism. Indian jingoism, anti-Pakistan propaganda and threats of war is not the solution. In Delhi, Robert Gates instead of appeasement and flattery, should have spoken out firmly that India should stop brow beating Pakistan; should extend a hand of friendship, to enable both the governments to cooperate on the vital issue of end to terror.
Source:pakobserver.net/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)