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

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/

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/

Buying off the Taliban: the latest plan to end the Afghanistan War

Will the Taliban play “Let’s make a deal”? The U.S. apparently hopes so, because they blessed a plan, purportedly set in motion by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, to basically bribe the Taliban into submission. The crux of the scheme is to inveigle members of the Taliban into quitting the battle with monies from a $1 billion fund that would provide defectors with employment, education and protection, as well as a role in the Afghan political process.

The Times Online reports that a draft “reintegration” agreement contains a vision of a “grand peace council” that would include representatives from every facet of Afghan society, including religious leaders. This draft version says:

The government will provide the Taliban and other insurgent groups who wish to respect the constitution a dignified way to renounce violence and peacefully reintegrate into their communities.

The strategy is primarily based on cajoling lower level Taliban commanders and soldiers, which is likely a wise approach in light of the fact previous efforts to tempt higher ranking Taliban have failed miserably. Although it makes sense on paper, the level of ferocity of recent attacks might signify the Taliban warriors aren’t quite ready to trade-in loyalties for cash.

Taliban fighters not ready to fold
This morning it certainly did not appear as if any of the insurgents were ready to lie down: 17 people died in four distinct episodes, a police chief was kidnapped, and a provincial governor narrowly escaped assassination. Either that or they are impressively enhancing their leverage to negotiate. And, just last week Taliban leaders were quick to announce their fighters weren’t going to sell-out anytime soon, after militants killed 5 and wounded 38 others in an attack on the Central Bank in downtown Kabul.

Nobody from the Taliban side is ready to make any kind of deal,” Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, said in an interview. “The world community and the international forces are trying to buy the Taliban, and that is why we are showing that we are not for sale.”

Mujahid makes a strong point. Contrary to rumors that some might be ready and willing to desert their cause and join the side of the Afghan government, the reality is the Taliban have been fighting more vigorously than at anytime since 2001. As a matter of fact, American soldiers are dying at a much faster rate at the hands of insurgents, considering two times as many were killed last year compared to 2008.

The makings of a deal
The supposed plan does align with recent assessments by U.S. officials that America will not win militarily in Afghanistan, but only via political reconciliation. Defense Secretary Robert Gates alluded to this during his weekend trip to Pakistan, when he mentioned that the Taliban were part of the “political fabric” of Afghanistan.

Plus, both sides know that Western and other foreign governments do not want to be mired in Afghanistan. The United States itself has clearly exhibited its aversion to being bogged down in a long-term conflict in the region, with President Obama going so far as to set a timetable for withdrawal in mid-2011.

Word also has it that despite historical precedence, senior figures in the Taliban might actually be willing to play ball. Whispers have swirled over the past few weeks around Kabul about back-channel discussions between Karzai and the Quetta Shura - the Taliban’s leadership council which has now found sanctuary in Quetta, Pakistan. A potential power-sharing arrangement between the Karzai government and elements of the Taliban might be on the table, should the Taliban agree to end the war.

According to the New York Times, President Karzai might ask the UN to remove the name of Mullah Omar, the infamous Afghan Taliban leader, from a “black list” of dubious figures who have had financial accounts frozen worldwide and are prohibited from traveling. Removing his name from this list is allegedly one of the principal preconditions that must be met prior to Mr. Omar entering into negotiations.

Major sticking points for the Taliban have been ardent demands to accept the Afghan constitution and the insistence that they break all ties with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. From their end, the Taliban have demanded that the Americans withdraw, or at least set a timetable for withdrawal, before talks can begin.

Even if these rumors are true, one wonders how much control the Mullah has over his entire organization and its spin-offs. Will the Haqqani Network and the new generation of jihadists lay down arms to join forces with infidels in the U.S.-backed Afghan government? The emerging Taliban leaders are less politically adept than their predecessors, purer in their Islamic faith and their motivation to rule Afghanistan and impose sharia law exceeds earthly desires.

Are Taliban ready to join 21st century?
But before any political accommodation with the Taliban can occur, the million dollar question that Gates needs answered is whether or not the Taliban are ready to build a 21st century Afghanistan or whether they just want to kill people:

The question is, what do the Taliban want to make out of Afghanistan?” Mr. Gates told journalists. “When they tried before, we saw what they wanted to make, and it was a desert, culturally and in every other way.”

Source:examiner.com/

Iran: London Conference on Afghanistan will solve no problem

First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi said on Tuesday that the upcoming London Conference on Afghanistan will solve no problem of the country.

Ankara, Jan 26, IRNA -- Making the remarks after a meeting of Afghan neighboring countries in Istanbul, he said that such conferences sponsored by the occupiers of the country will produce no results and are politically-oriented.

Rahimi further pointed out that what they brought to the region was the revival of terrorism and instead they promoted terrorism in the country and increased drugs production 40 times.

Iran firmly believes that peace and stability will not be established by military presence, he said, adding Iran’s stance was made clear during the event.

Military presence may be useful for spreading insecurity but it will never contribute to development and peace, he said.

“We believe that through cooperation and understanding, countries will be developed and terrorism will go away,” he said.

Stating that the occupiers have reached a deadlock in Afghanistan, Rahimi said that the westerners have not recognized the Afghans and are not familiar with Muslims’ thoughts.

“I am sure that the Afghans will make the occupiers feel regret,” he said.

The best thing for the Afghans is to make preparations for the return of refugees to their country, he said.

Rahimi arrived in Istanbul Monday night to attend the Afghan neighbors conference.

The Istanbul Friendship and Cooperation Conference, comprised of leaders and officials of Afghan neighbors, the host country, and of course Afghanistan, plus Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and some other countries opened in Istanbul on January 26 and will work until January 27.

Source:mathaba.net/

Clinton leaves for London conference on Afghanistan

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has left for London to attend the crucial conference on Afghanistan to be attended by over 60 countries, including India which will be represented by Foreign Minister S M Krishna.



"This conference is about further understanding what (Afghan) President (Hamid) Karzai plans to do as he continues to form his government," Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P J Crowley said.



"It will be about reviewing various milestones and metrics that we are going to put in place so that we can, in fact, help the Afghan Government move forward with its ability to deliver services to its people," he said.



Crowley said at the conference there will be efforts in terms of how the international community is going to be better coordinated, particularly on the civilian side of these reconstruction efforts.
Source:indianexpress.com/

Q+A-Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan tops $1 trillion

WASHINGTON, Jan 26 (Reuters) - The cost to U.S. taxpayers of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 has topped $1 trillion, and President Barack Obama is expected to request another $33 billion to fund more U.S. troops this year.

Bonds

About two-thirds of the money has been spent on the conflict in Iraq since 2003. This year is the first in which more funds are being spent in Afghanistan than Iraq, as the pace of U.S. military operations slows in Iraq and quickens in Afghanistan.

HOW MUCH HAS BEEN SPENT ALREADY?

Congress has approved $1.075 trillion dollars for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and "war-related activities" since 2001, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It included the costs in its budget outlook Tuesday.

The war expense topped $1 trillion in December 2009, when U.S. lawmakers approved the fiscal 2010 defense spending bill that included about $130 billion to be spent on the two conflicts through Sept. 30, 2010.

The $1.075 trillion tally includes $51 billion for diplomatic activities and aid to Iraq, Afghanistan and various other countries that are assisting the United States in fighting terrorism, CBO said.

HOW MUCH WENT FOR IRAQ AND HOW MUCH FOR AFGHANISTAN?

The lion's share of the spending -- $708 billion -- has been allocated to the war in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion there in 2003, according to CBO. Former President George Bush launched the Iraq war in a search for weapons of mass destruction, which never were found.

CBO said $345 billion has gone to Afghanistan, where the United States invaded to fight al Qaeda and topple the Taliban after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. About $22 billion went for war-related activities in other countries, it said.

The current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, is the first year that more money has been allocated to Afghanistan ($72.3 billion) than Iraq ($64.5 billion), according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan budget research group that has a running tally of the wars' costs on its Website.

The group included some U.S. homeland security spending in those 2010 cost tallies. It examines congressional appropriations, while CBO has access to additional sources, including Pentagon spending reports.

HOW MUCH MORE WILL THESE OPERATIONS COST?

Obama announced in December he was adding 30,000 more U.S. troops to the Afghan war effort to join the 68,000 already fighting a resurgent Taliban. Defense officials say he will shortly ask Congress for $33 billion to pay for the cost of the troop surge in fiscal 2010.

Future expenses are a question mark, partly because troop levels are uncertain. Obama says he wants to start withdrawing forces from Afghanistan in mid-2011, but that will depend, in part, on conditions on the ground. No departure deadline has been set.

Estimates of the cost per troop per year in Afghanistan vary from $500,000 to $1 million depending on whether expenditures on troop housing and equipment are included along with pay, food and fuel. Medical costs for the injured and veterans' compensation balloon as time goes on.

In Iraq, the U.S. force is supposed to fall to 50,000 by the end of August, from some 115,000 last month. The 50,000 can remain until the end of 2011, under an agreement with Baghdad.

A year ago CBO projected that additional costs for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts could be $867 billion over the next decade, if combined troop levels fall to 75,000 by about 2013.

WHY ARE SOME COSTS GROWING?

One expanding line item is the money being spent on on Iraq's and Afghanistan's troops. CBO said the United States has spent $49 billion to date on training and equipping military and police units in the two countries.

"That number may get larger in the future because it is central to our exit strategy, which is preparing Afghanistan to take over security so we can leave," said Christopher Hellman, research director for the National Priorities Project.

Obama is preparing to ask Congress next week for $11.6 billion more to train the Afghan security forces in 2011, draft Pentagon budget documents say.

WHAT ARE THE POLITICAL RISKS?

Obama's Democratic Party has the majority in Congress but is divided over the wisdom of continuing the Afghan war. This means he needs Republicans to get congressional approval of the next tranche of funds sometime this spring.

He is expected to get that approval, in part because many lawmakers who don't approve of sending more combat troops are loath to cut off funds to soldiers in the field.

But with Americans tiring of war and getting more concerned about U.S. indebtedness, political pressures are expected to grow for winding down U.S. military operations and their costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Source:reuters.com/

Soldiers' bodies brought home

The body of a soldier from Kent who was killed in Afghanistan has been returned to the UK.

Rifleman James Brown, 18, from Orpington, died when two suicide bombers on a motorbike blew themselves up outside Sangin in Helmand Province on December 15.

Lance Corporal David Kirkness, 24, from West Yorkshire, also died. Both were from 3rd Battalion The Rifles.

They were hailed as heroes for preventing mass carnage in a bazaar packed with Afghan civilians.

Also flown home was the body of Corporal Simon Hornby, 29, of 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, who was killed by an improvised explosive device while on foot patrol in the Nad-e-Ali area of Helmand on Saturday.

The soldiers' bodies were flown into RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire before a private ceremony for their families.

Source:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iY4AHV4k9GXRGzqf1I7ppJ7tjNDw

Obama signs $636.3 billion defense-spending bill

POOL / GETTY IMAGES

President Obama poses for a photo during Monday's visit to the Boys & Girls Club of Washington. He read "Polar Express" to the kids and passed out cookies.


The day in D.C.

Contracts scrutinized: President Obama on Monday touted the federal government's efforts to become more efficient, highlighting a report by the Office of Management and Budget that shows that agencies have identified more than $19 billion in contract savings for fiscal year 2010 as part of an effort to save $40 billion annually by fiscal year 2011. The administration has said the savings will come from terminating unnecessary contracts, ending an over-reliance on contractors and reducing the use of high-risk contracts. Federal spending on contracts has doubled since 2002, reaching $540 billion last year.
New cyber coordinator: Obama has chosen Howard Schmidt, a longtime computer-security executive with extensive ties to the corporate world, as national cybersecurity coordinator to take on the formidable task of organizing and managing the nation's increasingly vulnerable digital networks.

First flu shots: Obama and first lady Michelle Obama have received their swine-flu shots, Obama said Monday. Their daughters, 11-year-old Malia and 8-year-old Sasha, got their shots in October.

Black outreach: Defending himself against criticism from some black leaders who say he isn't showing enough compassion for the plight of regular blacks, Obama said billions of dollars in the stimulus bill were used to save the jobs of teachers, police officers and firefighters. Obama said many of those workers are black. Obama commented in an Oval Office interview with American Urban Radio Networks.

Seattle Times news services



WASHINGTON — President Obama signed into law legislation that provides $636.3 billion for the U.S. military in fiscal 2010, including $128.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House announced today.

About $65 billion of the war funding is for operations in Afghanistan. The administration says it will need about $30 billion more to finance the addition of 30,000 more troops there that begins this month. That request is likely to come with the fiscal 2011 budget to be submitted in February.

The defense bill was the last of 12 annual spending bills to be sent to the president. It includes a stopgap provision to ensure that unemployment benefits aren't cut off over the holidays.

As the last major spending bill of the year, the legislation also carried about $13.3 billion in nondefense spending, most of it for temporary extensions of several domestic programs Congress didn't have time to consider separately.

Lawmakers extended through February a package of emergency unemployment and health-care benefits that had been part of this year's economic-stimulus package. Those benefits include health-insurance subsidies for laid-off workers under a federal program called COBRA. The benefit had been slated to expire at the end of this month.

Lawmakers also temporarily reauthorized portions of the anti-terror USA Patriot Act and provided funding for Medicare to forestall for two months a scheduled 21 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat patients in the government health program for the elderly.

Senators arrived at a vote on the bill after defeating a Republican effort to filibuster the legislation Friday.

Most of the military spending had broad support, but Republicans sought the delay to express their displeasure with Congress' inability to consider nondefense items separately and to slow progress on the health-care legislation.

Some Republicans also blasted what they perceived as unnecessary pork-barrel spending in the bill.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, complained that the bill was laden with earmarks.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said several of the nondefense items in the bill, such as the unemployment-benefits extension, were sorely needed in the face of a lagging economy.

The bill includes about $11 billion more than the $625.3 billion Congress approved for fiscal 2009, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The funding for fiscal 2010 brings to more than $1 trillion the money approved since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks for the wars, veterans' care, embassy protection and enhanced domestic security, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

That includes $748 billion for spending related to the war in Iraq and $300 billion for Afghanistan, the research service said in a Sept. 28 report. The $128.3 billion for war spending is $22.1 billion less than the $150.4 billion approved in fiscal 2009 and the lowest since 2006, according to the CRS.

Source:seattletimes.nwsource.com/