Taliban Take Over South Afghan District

By AMIR SHAH

The Associated Press
Friday, April 27, 2007; 6:57 AM

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Taliban militants have seized control of a district in eastern Afghanistan after an hours-long clash that killed five people, including the local mayor and his police chief, a senior official said Friday.

The Taliban takeover is an embarrassment to the Afghan government and its foreign backers, and shows how vulnerable remote areas remain despite the presence of some 47,000 U.S. and NATO troops.

Militants launched the attack Thursday evening on the Giro district of Ghazni province, setting fire to several buildings and cutting communication lines, said provincial deputy governor Kazim Allayer.

The district mayor and four policemen, including the police chief, were killed in a battle that lasted several hours, Allayer said. Police reinforcements have been sent to the area, Ghazni's deputy police chief Mohammad Zaman said.

Giro is about 200 miles east of northern Helmand province, where a large NATO operation is under way.

"Giro collapsed last night, captured by the Taliban after heavy fighting between the police and the Taliban," said Gen. Murad Ali, deputy regional corps commander of the Afghan army.

The Afghan army sent troops early Friday from Ghazni and Paktika to assist, Ali said.

NATO and the U.S.-led coalition said they were aware of the incident.

"The details are very sketchy right now. We're tracking it closely," said Maj. William Mitchell, a spokesman for the coalition.

After a winter lull in attacks, the Taliban have stepped up bombings and attacks in recent weeks, as NATO-led forces push forward with their biggest ever offensive in southern Afghanistan to root out militants in the opium-producing heartland of Helmand province.

Meanwhile in eastern Khost province, gunmen assassinated a criminal investigation policeman as he was driving Friday in Tani district, said provincial police chief Gen. Mohammad Ayub.

A relative in the car also was killed, and the driver was wounded, Ayub said, adding that two suspects have been arrested. It was not immediately clear if it was a personal conflict or an insurgency attack.

In southern Uruzgan, Taliban militants ambushed a police convoy patrolling late Wednesday night, and the ensuing clash left four policemen and six Taliban dead, said provincial police chief Gen. Abdul Qasim Khan.

© 2007 The Associated Press

John Walker Lindh’s Buyer’s Remorse: ADAM LIPTAK

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS
THE NEW YORK TIMES

SIDEBAR

John Walker Lindh’s Buyer’s Remorse

By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: April 23, 2007

Serving a 20-year sentence in a federal prison after agreeing to a plea deal, John Walker Lindh has a powerful case of buyer’s remorse.

At the time, a year after the Sept. 11 attacks, it looked like John Walker Lindh had made a pretty good deal.

Mr. Lindh, a 21-year-old from Marin County, Calif., who had served as a Taliban soldier in Afghanistan, faced charges that could have sent him to prison for the rest of his life. In a plea deal, though, the government dropped its most serious accusations, including charges that Mr. Lindh had engaged in terrorism and conspired to kill Americans.

Mr. Lindh instead acknowledged only that he had aided the Taliban and carried weapons. He was sentenced to 20 years, and people congratulated his lawyers for their triumph.

Times change. Passions cool. Other cases offer telling contrasts. And Mr. Lindh now has a powerful and understandable case of buyer’s remorse.

“He was a victim of a hysterical atmosphere post-9/11,” Frank R. Lindh said about his son. “Much like the country has reassessed the premises for the Iraq war, it should re-examine the premises for this sentence.”

To hear Frank Lindh tell it, his son was an earnest and confused student of Islam who took up arms in a civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. “A very substantial number of people in America believe John fought Americans or committed terrorism or supported terrorism,” Frank Lindh said. “That’s just not true.”

But John Walker Lindh is not serving time for terrorism or treason.

--MORE--

Afghanistan in a downward spiral

The situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate. In retrospect, the 2004 presidential election was the high point. In addition to the Taliban resurgence in the south, President Harmid Karzai faces other intractable problems such as lack of jobs. Some might say that the real problem is a lack of natural leaders.

Apr 18, 2007

SPEAKING FREELY

By Haroun Mir

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

KABUL - Despite a successful presidential election in 2004 and parliamentary elections in 2005, the situation in Afghanistan has been worsening since then. The year 2006 was a bloody one in terms of casualties for both coalition and Afghan forces as well as for the civilian population.

In addition to long-lasting problems such as military conflict, narcotics and warlordism, the Afghan government is increasingly facing new dilemmas which emanate from people's dire social and economic conditions. People demand jobs, shelter and legitimate means to live a decent life. It is the prospect of political turmoil that poses the far greater danger for the stability of the country than military threats by the Taliban.

In fact, the Taliban and their allies have been able to improve their fighting capacity and propaganda capabilities, as well as to considerably extend their territory inside Afghanistan because they were able to improve their organizational structure, train a considerable number of new recruits and receive better supplies of arms and ammunition.

It will enable them to increase their attacks on NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and Afghan forces while terrorizing the civilian population with occasional, but ever more frequent, suicide bombings. This year, they will extend their control over major districts in the south and southwest of the country and improve their capacity to interrupt the main highways connecting Kabul to major cities in the south and west of the country.

Since NATO does not have enough soldiers on the ground to control the entire Afghan territory bordering Pakistan, its main task will be limited to defending major cities while the insurgents expand their control in small towns and isolated districts. NATO's sporadic military operations will only have limited, short-term impact.

NATO can temporarily dislodge the insurgent forces from their strongholds but it cannot police the area and requires Afghan forces to do the job. In most cases, since there are not enough Afghan security forces, the Taliban simply reemerge from their hideouts and take back control.

The US military contingent outside the NATO mission is not sufficient to pursue and engage small and highly mobile groups of insurgents in the rugged and difficult Afghan territory bordering Pakistan. Without of a significant increase in the number of NATO troops, nothing will change until the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police grow in strength and numbers.

It doesn't help that Afghanistan lacks strong pluralistic political parties, necessary elements for a healthy democracy. In the absence of any coherent political ideology or vision for the future of the country, political regroupings take place based on ethnic affiliations. Tensions over sharing power in the government among the various ethnic groups are growing rapidly, and political and intellectual debates in the Afghan free media focus on differences among them rather than their common interests.

Meanwhile, neighboring countries which are against the presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan are working to incite violent ethnic rifts as a means to undermine NATO's efforts. The worst scenario would be if ethnic differences become a motive for armed conflict in Afghanistan, as currently in Iraq. The country would sink once again into political chaos and misery.

Afghan politicians are unfamiliar with the notion of compromise and constructive political dialogue in order to overcome their political differences. Since Afghanistan is a very poor country, everyone struggles to have a share of government resources, which are the only financial resources available and are largely donated by the international community.

Until now there has not been a legitimate and genuine political opposition to President Harmid Karzai. In fact, those who oppose the president are for the most part his former political allies who had been his ministers at one time during the past five years.

Removed from their high-level government positions, they have turned into dedicated enemies who do everything possible to undermine Karzai's leadership.

For instance, the recent formation of the new political entity called the United National Front (UNF) seems to be a short-lived coalition of former Northern Alliance leaders and a few prominent former communist party members. This new group is not established on the basis of a common political platform or a vision for the future of the country. Instead, its formation is a tactical political move for some of its members to put pressure on Karzai in order to extract more advantages from him, such as key government positions. Sadly, they ignore the fact that if this regime falls prematurely the only alternative would be a comeback of the Taliban.

One of the major political issues in Afghanistan is the lack of natural leaders. While the whole south of the country has become leaderless due to the elimination of traditional Pashtun leaders during the past three decades of war, the north has also lost its only legitimate leader, the late Ahmad Shah Massoud, the former leader of Northern Alliance, who was killed in a suicide attack in September 2001 by al-Qaeda.

The biggest challenge in the near term is to find charismatic and sufficiently unifying leaders. The next Afghan presidential election is less than two years away. In fact, without strong pluralistic political parties or charismatic political leaders the country will face tremendous leadership challenges which will further intensify ethnic tensions.

The economic situation is deteriorating rapidly because of insecurity, lack of enforcement of property rights, administrative corruption, and most importantly people's pessimistic expectations. The meager private investment by a number of Afghan expatriates is seriously threatened by ever increasing kidnapping and ransoming of Afghan businessmen and their families. Instead, narcotics have once again become the main source income.

One of the crucial problems in Afghanistan is poverty. Only a small number of Afghans, who work for foreign companies, earn adequate wages. Those who are employed in public administration earn on average less than $50 a month. In addition, the massive return of Afghan refugees from Pakistan and Iran has created an extra economic burden on the country.

Kabul has become a big ghetto where very poor people build rudimentary shelters on the top of hills and mountains. The Afghan government does not have adequate financial resources and the capacity to respond to all legitimate demands of the returnees.

Also, unemployment has become a growing concern both for the people and the government. Every year hundreds of thousands of young boys and girls graduate from high schools and colleges and cannot find jobs. The Afghan administration does not have the capacity to hire more people, and jobs in the private sector don't exist.

Young graduates of high schools and colleges are just added every year to the growing number of unemployed. While a limited number of people live a relatively good life, the rest of population struggles to survive.

In addition, corruption is asphyxiating the very fragile Afghan administration. It has become widespread and evident to the point that even the president admits it but cannot prevent it. There are two reasons for corruption in Afghanistan. At the very low level, civil servants become corrupt because they cannot live with $40 or $50 monthly salaries.

In the higher echelon, easy money from narcotics corrupts administrators. For instance, drug traffickers are willing to pay huge amounts of money to corrupt political appointees to undermine the rule of law.

It is important to remember that all previous governments in Afghanistan have fallen not because of their military weaknesses but because of social, economic and governance issues. For instance, the communist regime was able to defend an encircled Kabul for almost four years after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1989. The regime eventually fell in 1992 during a power struggle among different factions.

NATO is capable of containing the military threat of the Taliban, far from the center of power in Kabul, but in the event of political turmoil or popular revolt over lack of progress, like the riot of May 29, 2006, in Kabul, it can't prevent the unraveling of the Afghan government.

I wrote in June of last year for the International Affairs Forum: "The much publicized unfortunate road accident of May 29th of a US military vehicle wasn't the main cause for riots in Kabul. It became a pretext for those unemployed, disenchanted, and disillusioned young to show their anger toward the government and the region's most convenient boogey man, the United States.”

In fact, relative to last year, the socio-economic conditions for young Kabulis have gotten worse. They have become pessimistic about the prospect of a better future because the international community has failed to deliver what was initially promised for Afghanistan in terms of reconstruction and economic development.

The focus of NATO countries on military issues alone will not overshadow the threat of political turmoil arising from people's terrible economic conditions. Afghanistan needs more assistance from NATO countries to rebuild its civil society and to create economic means for its long-term political stability as a viable country.

Haroun Mir is a policy analyst for SIG & Partners Afghanistan. He served over five years as an aide to the late Ahmad Shah Massoud, Afghanistan's former defense minister.

(Copyright 2007 Haroun Mir.)

2006 bloodiest year since Taliban's fall, rights group says

ALISA TANG

Associated Press

KABUL — Insurgents committed war crimes by attacking ordinary Afghans and killing 669 civilians in 2006, the heaviest toll since the Taliban's ouster in 2001, according to a report released Monday.

Tallying records from non-governmental organizations and the media, Human Rights Watch counted 189 bombings in 2006 that killed 492 civilians. Another 177 civilians were killed in other attacks including ambushes and executions.

“The insurgents are increasingly committing war crimes, often by directly targeting civilians,” said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director at the New York-based rights group. Even when targeting security forces, “they generally kill many, many more civilians than they do military personnel.”

Human Rights Watch noted that anti-government forces were not the only ones responsible for civilian deaths, and that at least 230 civilians were killed during coalition and NATO operations last year.

Exact casualty figures from previous years are not available, but the increase in insurgent attacks last year indicate that “2006 was the deadliest year for civilians in Afghanistan since 2001,” the report said.

The data underlines the dangers facing Afghans more than five years after a U.S.-led invasion raised hopes that the country could emerge from decades of war.

Suicide bombings, once rare in Afghanistan, occurred on a regular basis in 2006. Two suicide attacks were reported in 2003, six in 2004, and 21 in 2005. Last year, the number of suicide attacks shot up to at least 136, killing 272 civilians and wounding 531, the 116-page report said.

Eighty of those suicide attacks were on military targets, but they killed nearly five times more civilians than security forces — 181 civilians compared to 37 Afghan or international security forces.

“The Taliban are starting to look like some of the insurgent groups in Iraq,” said Michael Shaikh, who conducted research for the report. “These guys are more about fighting the global jihad. ... It's a much more dangerous Taliban.”

The Taliban have claimed responsibility for more than two-thirds of recorded bomb attacks, mostly in the most volatile south and southeast.

Hezb-i Islami, a faction of which follows renegade former Afghan Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, appears to be involved in attacks in the east and north, the report said.

The report cited 190 attacks on teachers, school officials, students and schools, up from 91 such attacks in 2005.

Militants have increasingly targeted aid workers, journalists and government employees, condemning them as spies or collaborators. In 2006, the report stated, at least 177 civilians were assassinated.

The recent killing of an Afghan journalist who was captured along with an Italian journalist for whom he was working as a translator and their driver, underscored the situation.

“The Taliban's murders of Afghan journalist Ajmal Naqshbandi and driver Sayed Agha were war crimes,” Ms. Mariner said.

The Italian journalist, Daniele Mastrogiacomo of the daily La Repubblica, was freed after a heavily criticized deal in which the Afghan government released five Taliban insurgents in exchange for him.

The report included comments from witnesses, victims and relatives and said anger over the civilian deaths was focused on the militants.

"I lost my son, brother and nephew because of the Taliban. They say that they are fighting for God and Islam, but they are not; they are killing good and innocent Muslims and Afghans who have done nothing wrong," said a man identified in the report by the pseudonym Abdullah whose shop was destroyed by a suicide car bomb last August in the south.

Human Rights Watch said it hoped its report could shame the increasingly radical Taliban into altering its tactics.

"We don't think that change is easy, but they're not entirely impervious to pressure," Ms. Mariner said.

Bombings, gunbattles on rise in Afghanistan

Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:57 PM ET

KABUL (Reuters) - A NATO soldier died in combat in Afghanistan on Friday, a day after two were killed by roadside bombs, bringing the number of foreign troop deaths this week to 12 -- one of the bloodiest weeks for foreign forces in months.

The soldier died in a gunbattle in the south, but under a new NATO policy the alliance refused to say where because that could identify the nationality of the victim before the relevant government makes an announcement.

On Thursday, two NATO soldiers were killed in separate roadside bombings in the east, NATO said in a statement, without saying where, and a helicopter chartered by the U.S.-led coalition crash-landed due to technical problems southwest of Kabul.

At the crash site in Ghazni province, rescuers came under fire from suspected Taliban fighters.

Three Taliban were killed in the resulting gunbattle but there were no casualties among the rescuing troops or the five contractors aboard the aircraft.

The Taliban said they had shot down the helicopter but there was no way of independently verifying either account.

Violence has been rising through the spring following the annual winter lull after last year saw the bloodiest fighting since the Taliban's ouster in 2001.

Eight Canadian soldiers from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) and one from the separate U.S.-led coalition died in bombings in the south this week.

It has been the bloodiest single week for the U.S. and NATO -- currently also under U.S. command -- for several months.

In Berlin, Germany's defense minister said he had seen no sign of any spring offensive almost a month into spring.

"So far one cannot speak of any spring offensive by the Taliban," Jung told Reuters in an interview this week.

"There is, as in previous months, a large number of local armed incidents and attacks, of which around 90 percent are in the southern and eastern parts of the country."

NATO and Afghan forces have launched their own offensive, with about 5,000 troops, in the north of southern Helmand province, the opium heartland of the world's top producer.

Germany has about 3,000 troops in the country, mainly in the relatively safe north, and has resisted calls from NATO allies to send more and allow deployment in the south, where most of the fighting occurs.

Instead, it sent six Tornado reconnaissance jets this week. But security experts, including a former German officer, say the planes serve no tactical purpose and are only symbolic.

(Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau in Berlin)

Karzai says he's met with Taliban to seek peace; Taliban denies it

In Kabul, suicide car bomb kills 4; district overrun

The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 04.07.2007

KABUL, Afghanistan — President Hamid Karzai acknowledged for the first time Friday that he has met with Taliban militants in attempts to bring peace to Afghanistan, which is struggling to quell a rising insurgency.

Karzai's assertion — immediately rejected as false by a Taliban spokesman — came as a suicide car bomber killed four people and wounded four others in Kabul and militants overran a district in the volatile southeast.

In the past, Karzai has offered, without success, to hold talks with the fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Omar and renegade warlord Gulbudin Hekmatyar. Some officials in his government, including provincial governors, are thought to have held informal talks with militants in the south and east, but with little apparent success to calm the insurgency.

"We have had representatives from the Taliban meeting with different bodies of Afghan government for a long time," Karzai told a news conference. "I have had some Taliban coming to speak to me as well."
Karzai did not disclose any details of the meetings, when they took place or who attended.
Hundreds of former members of the hard-line Taliban regime, including a sprinkling of former senior commanders and officials, have reconciled with the government since they were ousted from power in the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.

Current rebel leaders have apparently refused to hold talks, and in the past year, thousands more fighters have picked up guns and joined the insurgency, which in 2006 alone left some 4,000 people, mainly militants, dead.

Zabiullah Mujaheed, a purported spokesman for the militants, said that Taliban "do not want to talk to a puppet government."

"Karzai's government has no power and all their policies are designed by America," Mujaheed told The Associated Press by phone from an undisclosed location. "If the U.S. wants to negotiate with the Taliban, they should first leave our country."

Speaking at the news conference, Karzai, whose administration is increasingly unpopular because of insecurity in the south and east and continuing poverty, struck a conciliatory tone, urging Afghan militants to lay down weapons and join his government.

"Afghan Taliban are always welcome, they belong to this country. … They are the sons of this soil," Karzai said.

"As they repent, as they regret, as they want to come back to their own country, they are welcome." But he said militants from neighboring countries such as Pakistan "should be destroyed."
"They are destroying our lives, killing our people; they are not welcome and there will be no talks with them," Karzai said.

The Afghan leader often accuses Pakistan of not only providing sanctuary to Taliban but also guiding the rebels in an attempt to wield influence over Afghanistan — charges denied by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key U.S. ally in its war on terrorism.

In the latest violence, a suicide car bomber blew himself up at a checkpoint in the west of Kabul after a policeman told the vehicle to stop. Five died, including the bomber, whom Mujaheed claimed was a Taliban militant.

Afghan war may be lost: experts

Related
Afghani Blog
---
Taliban are back in force, MPS hear. Contradicting military chief's optimistim

ANDREW MAYEDA

CanWest News Service

Friday, March 30, 2007

Two Afghanistan experts painted a sobering picture of the conditions there yesterday, arguing support among Afghans for NATO forces is plummeting, the U.S.-driven policy of poppy eradication is wrongheaded, and the war might not be winnable in its present form.

U.S. scholar Barnett Rubin and Gordon Smith, Canada's former ambassador to NATO, delivered their withering comments to a Commons committee only days after Canada's top military commander, Gen. Rick Hillier, touted progress being made there.

Hillier, the chief of defence staff, this week predicted Canadian troops in southern Afghanistan will soon see a rise in attacks from the Taliban. But he insisted on using the term "surge" rather than "offensive."

He also noted many Afghans are moving back into their homes in districts west of Kandahar following a Canadian-led NATO offensive last fall.

But Rubin, who has been to Afghanistan 29 times over more than two decades, said yesterday many Afghans are growing frustrated with the pace of Western efforts to stabilize the country.

"They're not at all happy. Support for both the international presence and the government has plummeted in the past year or so," he told the foreign affairs committee.

He said Afghans aren't seeing the results of promises by the United States and NATO, which took over the mission in 2003, to increase security, establish democracy and improve the economy. "The main complaint that I hear from Afghans is ... that we haven't delivered what they think we promised."

Rubin recently published an article in Foreign Affairs magazine warning Afghanistan "is at risk of collapsing into chaos." In it, he blasts the U.S. for underestimating the influence of Pakistan, which he accuses of providing "safe haven" to the Taliban.

Smith, meanwhile, threw cold water on Hillier's suggestion that Canadian troops are facing a weakened enemy.

There is evidence Al-Qa'ida-affiliated militants, who often fight alongside the Taliban, are actually gaining strength, said Smith, now executive director of the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria.

"The Al-Qa'ida problem has not gone away," he told MPs. "It's important that we not forget the original motivation for going to Afghanistan, and that was to deal with Al-Qa'ida."

Smith recently released a critical report of his own, titled Canada in Afghanistan: Is it Working? He questions whether NATO can achieve its stated goals, even within 10 years. Canada has committed to maintain its military presence until 2009.

He argued NATO needs to hike its troop commitment, while using development aid more effectively and opening negotiations with the Taliban. Smith also said NATO must create a market so Afghan farmers can sell their opium for legal use in medical products like morphine.

Both Rubin and Smith suggested Canada needs to have a new debate about its role in Afghanistan. Liberal MP Keith Martin welcomed their remarks.

Ottawa Citizen

Afghanistan: the Fight Comes to Helmand's Capital

Taleban Target Helmand's Capital

Over the past weeks, Lashkar Gah has become increasingly unstable, with bombs and murder almost daily fare. Now, for the first time in Helmand, the Taleban have killed a woman.

By IWPR trainees in Helmand (ARR No. 248, 27-Mar-07)

It has been a bad few days in Helmand’s capital, with a high-profile kidnapping and murder followed by a suicide bomb at police headquarters. Residents say the Taleban are becoming more and more visible in Lashkar Gah, and enjoy support among some segments of the population.

On March 27, a suicide bomber dressed in army uniform attempted to assassinate the chief of police.

“A man dressed as an Afghan National Army soldier came to police headquarters saying he needed to file an application for a passport,” said police chief Nabijan Mullahkhel. “He was targeting me, but the police stopped him at the gate checkpoint. So he blew himself up, killing four police and injuring two more.”

Another police official confirmed the incident, saying that a police commander was among the dead. He added that in addition to police, two civilians were wounded in the explosion.

The blast could be heard throughout the centre of Lashkar Gah, and was followed by rapid gunfire. Local residents say the police were shooting into the air to discourage crowds of onlookers from gathering at the site.

A high-ranking Taleban commander in Helmand took responsibility for the blast, although his estimate of the casualties differed from that given by police.

“We killed a lot of police, and injured many more,” said the commander, who did not want to be named.

The news from Helmand’s capital is getting worse by the day. As the spring offensive kicks into high gear throughout the province, Lashkar Gah itself is becoming a more frequent target of insurgent activity.

On March 26, the head of the women’s prison was kidnapped and murdered, in what her family says is a politically motivated killing.

Zargola, the prison warden, was seized by two men on motorcycles as she left her house in the morning, as she set out to visit her adult daughter, police officials said. A short time later, her body was found in Bollan, a district approximately one kilometre from the capital. She had been shot six times.

Mohammad Wais, chief detective with the provincial crime squad, confirmed the killing. “We found her body,” he said.

The Taleban claimed responsibility for the murder.

“We killed Zargola,” said Qari Muhammad Yousuf, spokesman for the insurgents in Helmand.

Zargola was a mother of three. Her elderly husband was unemployed and relied on her salary.

He eldest son, Amanullah, 27, runs a music shop in Lashkar Gah.

“My mother had been in this job for a long time, although she could neither read nor write,” said Amanullah. “She was killed because she worked for the government.”

While Zargola is the first woman to be kidnapped and killed in Helmand province, she is not the first to be targeted. Fawzia Ulumi, head of the official women’s affairs department in Helmand province, has received numerous death threats, and narrowly escaped assassination several months ago.

“Two gunmen on motorcycles shot at me in my car,” she said. “I survived, but my driver was killed.”

While even the governor, Asadullah Wafa, acknowledges that several of Helmand’s 14 districts are under Taleban control, the provincial capital itself has remained relatively stable until now.

But in recent days, residents have reported seeing armed Taleban patrols on the street at night.

“The police drive right by them and do nothing,” said one reporter in the town.

Residents of Lashkar Gah. especially those who fear they might be targeted, are worried by the growing boldness of the Taleban,

Sher Mohammad, 56, lives a few kilometres from the centre of the city. He hides his identity from his neighbours in the Tor Taang district because he fears retribution from the insurgents.

“I am a government employee,” he said. “But no one knows where I live. I hide because I’m afraid that the Taleban will come for me in the night.”

He has good reason to be worried.

One Taleb, speaking to a reporter, said that his entire job consisted of ferreting out government employees.

“We first leave them letters, warning them to leave the government or else they will be dealt with harshly,” he said. “If they do not obey, then we know what to do with them.”

But despite such tough tactics, the insurgents have their supporters, even in Lashkar Gah.

“Every night we are invited for dinner,” said the Taleb, “And local shopkeepers give us top-up cards for our phones.”

Residents say one motive for engaging with the Taleban is that they fear that the Afghan government is unable to protect them. Support for the Taleban is a way of hedging their bets.

“Security has become much worse compared with recent years,” said Abdul Karim, 42. “The police are unable to provide security. There are killings, robberies, all kinds of atrocities. Two years ago, there were schools open all over the district, reconstruction was proceeding and the situation was getting better.

“But with the arrival of more foreign soldiers, and the increase in numbers of police and army, things just keep getting worse.”

IWPR is implementing a journalism training programme in Helmand province. This story is a compilation of trainee reports.

Who won the 'war on terror'?

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Zbigniew Brzezinski writes about the ‘war on terror’. I can’t emphasize enough how important it is for Americans to understand that the entire concept is Israeli, invented by Israeli strategists, and promulgated mainly by Benjamin Netanyahu (and his agents working within the highest levels of the American government), to provide a rationale for the peculiar against-interest continued American sponsorship of Israel after the fall of the Soviet Union (sponsorship needed for Israel to continue to build its empire after the loss of the concept of Israel as the bulwark in the Middle East against Soviet influence). Brzezinski is aware of this, or course, but can’t say it, although you can get hints of what he is talking about by the Islamophobia examples that he gives.

There were terrorist attacks in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, but nobody thought about responding with a ‘war on terror’. The concept is absurd. You fight wars against countries. We’re told that a bunch of guys, mostly Saudis, directed by a fellow closely associated with the Saudi power elites, attacked the United States. What is the response? The United States attacked Afghanistan, the whole country, because the guy the FBI claims directed the attack was living in a cave somewhere there! Before the concept of the ‘war on terror’ was invented by the Israeli right this would have been regarded as sheer lunacy, but Americans swallowed the whole thing. At the time, many people made the sane suggestion that, since the terrorist attacks were a criminal act, the appropriate response would be to send some FBI agents to Afghanistan to conduct an investigation, find the guilty parties, apprehend them, and bring them back for trial (had the United States asked nicely the Taliban would have consented to this). Instead, the United States decided to fight a war – a war which it and its allies are losing rather badly – in order to clear the way to place some pipelines and prepare the intellectual climate in the United States for the war that was really the main neocon agenda item, the attack on Iraq.

The assassination of JFK contained big pointers leading you to think that either Cuba or the Soviet Union was behind the crime. These pointers were all bogus, manufactured by whoever planned the murder. The idea was to leave options open for a right-wing goal of attacking either the Soviet Union or Cuba. The back-up plan, if something went terribly wrong (which it did, when Oswald wasn’t killed at the scene – note how the 9/11 planners avoided the problem by killing the perpetrators off in the act of committing the terrorism), was to leave the threat of a ruinous war out there to scare reasonable people in Washington to assist in covering up the crime. The cover-up by the war-avoiding Washington establishment would also provide cover for the real forces behind the assassination (I’m following Peter Dale Scott on this, although I think that the 9/11 conspiracy is much different that the JFK assassination conspiracy, as conspirators learn from their mistakes, as well as by reading commentators on their mistakes like Peter Dale Scott!).

The big pointers from September 11 directed attention to places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, obviously not practical places for an American attack. Yet it seemed that the American government had to do something, and the main pointer to Afghanistan, Osama himself (a guy who denies having had anything to do with the attack), together with the illogic of the ‘war on terror’, led directly to the attack which had been pre-planned by the Bush Administration before September 11 (along with the attack on Iraq which was intended to be prepared by the introduction to the American people of the ‘war on terror’ concept in Afghanistan). I really have to wonder if the cover-up, with enthusiastic if somewhat incompetent assistance of the Washington elite, was motivated by threats to reveal manufactured evidence connecting the attacks to the Saudi royals (Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid al-Midhar look more and more like double agents, explaining how they moved through and into the United States unimpeded, ended up living in a house in San Diego owned by an FBI informant, and even attended the Malaysia meeting) leading to the threat of a war which the American Establishment would do anything to prevent (Senator Graham seems to a pointer, and I’d be looking for people connected to him very suspiciously).

The Israeli extreme right won the ‘war on terror’. Who lost? Besides the obvious victims in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine, the losers are the people who are now subjected to the regime of fear caused by the ‘war on terror’, in the United States and its allies.

posted at 3:27 AM permanent link

Taliban 'invite' 10,000 Uzbeks to Helmand

By Massoud Ansari, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 12:55am GMT 25/03/2007

Islamic militants linked to Osama bin Laden have been offered a safe haven by the Taliban in Afghanistan, bringing them into conflict with British troops patrolling the lawless province of Helmand.

Uzbek gunmen, who fought a series of bloody battles last week with Pakistani tribesmen in the border region of Waziristan, where they had been living, have been told they should join the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan instead.

The move raises the prospect of a major upsurge in violence in Helmand, where 43 British soldiers have been killed in clashes with militants over the last five

(Map of Afghanistan and surrounding region)

years.

The group of around 10,000 Uzbeks are led by Tahir Yuldashev, a close associate of the al-Qaeda terrorist chief, who is believed to be hiding out in the mountainous border area with his chief henchman Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The members of the Islamic Movement Union of Uzbekistan fell out with their Pakistani hosts after accusing some tribal leaders of acting as agents of the Pakistani government, which is under huge pressure from the US to crack down on Islamic militants. Pakistan government officials said that nearly 160 people, including 130 Uzbeks, were killed in the battle.
advertisement

Taliban fighters intervened to broker a ceasefire but local officials have told The Sunday Telegraph that neither side is likely to back down. Taliban sources have revealed that they have offered the Uzbeks safe passage into Afghanistan in order to bring an end to the violence.

The militant group are wanted by the Uzbek government of President Islam Karimov and cannot return to their own country.

Lateef Afridi, a tribal leader and former national assembly member from the Frontier province, who is privy to details of the discussions, said: "These tribesmen are quite determined to flush them out. Given that these Uzbeks cannot be extradited back to their own country because they are all wanted there, one way they are considering to accommodate them is to send them to Afghanistan."

Mr Afridi said the Taliban felt compelled to give the Uzbeks a way out because if the battle continued between the local tribesmen and the foreign fighters, the Taliban elements would have to choose which side to back, unleashing further bloodshed. Another source added: "Both the sides are led by highly trained militants and if the fighting is not stopped, there will be massive killings."

A second tribal leader said the local and Afghan Taliban forces had already approached the Uzbeks and asked them to continue their jihad in Taliban-dominated areas in Afghanistan, in a bid to "reinvigorate their campaign of violence against Nato troops". They have been offered safe passage to either Kunar, Paktia or Helmand, where British troops are braced for a spring offensive from the Taliban.

Britain has announced plans to raise the UK military presence in Afghanistan to more than 7,000 troops. But the presence of a new wave of heavily armed guerrilla fighters is likely to leave troops stretched further and strengthen calls for an even greater military presence.

For Pakistan, forcing out the Uzbeks has the advantage of undermining support for Osama bin Laden.

His deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has been spotted in Waziristan several times. If the local tribesmen succeed, it will deny bin Laden one more safe haven for his associates, according to one western diplomat.

The Uzbeks are believed to have killed more than 1,500 local tribesmen in the past two years and are blamed for kidnapping others.

Mr Afridi said: "The partial ceasefire was achieved only for a time being, when the Taliban leaders intervened, but it did not give both the parties enough time to carry out the dead. The corpses and broken limbs of the dead are scattered all over the area."

‘Afghan govt more corrupt than Taliban’

KABUL: Bribery and corruption are pervasive in Afghanistan’s current government, according to a survey released on Monday that said most Afghans believe their leaders are more corrupt than the Soviet-backed government in the 1980s or the Taliban-run government in the 1990s.

About 60 per cent of respondents said the current administration is more corrupt than any other in the past two decades, said the report by Integrity Watch Afghanistan, an independent group.

Over the last five years, corruption has soared to levels not seen in previous administrations, it said. Money can buy government appointments, bypass justice or evade police, while the government is unable or unwilling to seriously tackle corruption, it said. The group said it interviewed 1,258 Afghans for the study.

The courts and the Interior Ministry were highlighted as the most corrupt institutions. The group’s executive director, Lorenzo Delesgues, pointed to weak law enforcement as a main reason for corruption and bribery.

Corruption has undermined the legitimacy of the state, Delesgues told a news conference. The group, which conducted the survey in 13 provinces, said 93 per cent of the respondents believed that bribes had to be paid for more than half of public services and administrative work. The report said impunity and unaccountability of civil servants underpinned corruption. Despite the reports of widespread bribery and corruption, 45 per cent of respondents said corruption had little or no effect on their households. The report did not provide a margin of error for the survey.

Corruption in Afghanistan is fuelled by low-paid government workers who pad their salaries by demanding bribes to process simple paperwork. Many Afghans pay bribes to avoid trouble with police, who make about $70 a month.

The country’s booming heroin trade also leads to corruption, with police and other government officials looking the other way after payoffs by farmers and drug-runners. Even Afghanistan’s anti-corruption chief, Izzatullah Wasifi, has a troubling past. A recent Associated Press investigation found he was convicted two decades ago for selling heroin in the United States.

Wasifi is adamant his drug conviction should not affect his ability to serve in government, and compares his situation to US President George W Bush, who was once arrested in 1976 for drunk driving.

He points to his record as governor of western Farah province, where opium production dropped 25 percent during his 14-month tenure before he took his current position. Officials who worked with Wasifi in Farah mostly commended his work.

Most Afghan civilians turning against NATO, towards Taliban: survey

What? They don't appreciate our 'help'?
---
Related
Poor Iraq. First the lies and now, even worse: more help
---

Afghans rejecting Canadian troops for Taliban, survey finds
Globe and Mail, Canada - 19 Mar 2007
LONDON — Afghan civilians are increasingly turning against Canadian troops and their country's government and toward support of the Taliban, according to a ...

Taliban Support Rising In Afghanistan: Study Online - International News Network, Pakistan - 17 hours ago LONDON: Canadian troops are facing another challenge in Afghanistan as Taliban support among civilians has rocketed to nearly 27 per cent, ctv.ca reported. ...

Not welcome Macleans.ca, Canada - 19 Mar 2007 Maclean's 50 member Scott Taylor, who travelled with the Senlis Council in Kandahar earlier this year, says it's time for a comprehensive re-assessment of ...

Most Afghan civilians turning against NATO, towards Taliban: survey Winnipeg Free Press, Canada - 19 Mar 2007 TORONTO (CP) — A new survey conducted this month in Afghanistan suggests civilians there are turning against Canadian and other NATO troops as well as their ... Poverty "driving people into arms of Taliban" Kuwait News Agency, Kuwait - 19 Mar 2007 LONDON, March 19 (KUNA) -- More than a quarter of men in southern and eastern Afghanistan support the Taliban, according to research released here Monday. ... Losing Afghan hearts, minds Toronto Star, Canada - 20 Mar 2007 Canada and other Western countries are losing the battle for hearts and minds in Afghanistan while the Taliban is seizing the advantage, says a survey from ...

We Have Met The Enemy, And He Is Republican Administrations!

The New York Times is reporting that Sunni militants have emerged as the main obstacle to peace in Baghdad:

In January, when President Bush announced his plans to reinforce American troops in Baghdad, Shiite militias were seen as the main worry. Some analysts predicted that bloody clashes with Shiite militants in the Sadr City district in northeastern Baghdad were all but inevitable.

Instead, during the early weeks of the operation, deadly bombings by Sunni Arab militants have emerged as a greater danger. In particular, the threat posed by the Sunni group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia was underscored when American troops seized a laptop computer from a senior operative in the group who was killed in late December.

Information from captured materials indicates that the group’s leadership sees “the sectarian war for Baghdad as the necessary main focus of its operations,” according to an intelligence report that was described by American officials.

Okay.

Let's think about this.

Bush went to war with Saddam, whose Baathist Sunni minority oppressed the Shia Iraqi majority.

BBC:

Shia Muslims were oppressed by Iraq's Baathist regime for more than 30 years and excluded from the highest ranks of power.

Except that created worries that the Iraqi Shia majority will create an alliance with neighboring Shia Iran.

The Financial Times, almost a year ago:

Arab rulers are increasingly frustrated by a changing political order in the Middle East, where the Shia are for the first time in power in Iraq and Shia militia are now engaged in the sectarian conflict with the Sunni minority.

But their fears have been compounded by the muscle-flexing of Shia Iran, a traditional rival now determined to pursue a nuclear programme and consolidate its alliance with Syria, the Shia in Lebanon and some radical Palestinian factions, forming a radical anti-western axis in the face of the more moderate pro-western and Sunni-dominated Arab states.

And that fear was exacerbated by the disastrously bungled execution of Saddam.

Time:

Saddam's execution became another flash point. Even Sunnis who had little sympathy for Saddam were incensed that the government chose to hang him at the hour of morning prayers on one of the most sacred Muslim holidays (Iraqi Sunnis celebrated the holiday one day before the Shi'ites). The choice seemed to confirm suspicions that Shi'ite political dominance would be a constant humiliation. "It was their way of telling us, 'We're in charge now, and you are so weak that even your holy days have no meaning anymore,'" says media analyst Kadhim al-Mukhdadi. "That morning I gave up hoping that things would get better."

And Bush is so worried about Iran that he might go to war with them.

Newsweek:

The Iranians have reason to feel paranoid. In recent weeks senior American officers have condemned Tehran for providing training and deadly explosives to insurgents. In a predawn raid on Dec. 21, U.S. troops barged into the compound of the most powerful political party in the country, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and grabbed two men they claimed were officers in Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Three weeks later U.S. troops stormed an Iranian diplomatic office in Irbil, arresting five more Iranians. The Americans have hinted that as part of an escalating tit-for-tat, Iranians may have had a hand in a spectacular raid in Karbala on Jan. 20, in which four American soldiers were kidnapped and later found shot, execution style, in the head. U.S. forces promised to defend themselves.

Some view the spiraling attacks as a strand in a worrisome pattern. At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs. U.S. officials insist they have no intention of provoking or otherwise starting a war with Iran, and they were also quick to deny any link to Sharafi's kidnapping. But the fact remains that the longstanding war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous. A second Navy carrier is steaming toward the Persian Gulf. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident's spiraling into a crisis are higher than they've been in years.

And he's even been funding Sunni allies of al Qaeda, because they're also opposed to potential Shia hegemony.

Think Progress:

New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the “single most explosive” element of his latest article involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.

Hersh says the U.S. has been “pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight” for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to “stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.” Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of “three Sunni jihadist groups” who are “connected to al Qaeda” but “want to take on Hezbollah.”

And since at least last summer, there have been reports that the Sunni al Qaeda allies known as the the Taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan.

Washington Post:

Since early May, a resurgent Taliban militia has launched attack after attack in which more than 300 insurgents, soldiers and civilians have died.

In fact, NATO is preparing to fight an imminently expected Taliban offensive.

AFP:

NATO has pledged a robust response to an expected offensive early this year from Taliban-led insurgents in Afghanistan, as the United States offered to boost aid and possibly provide extra troops.

And, of course, during the Cold War, Reagan helped create the Taliban, in the first place, because their predecessors were fighting the Soviet Union.

From the Dkosopoedia:

The Reagan administration and the Saudi governmen gasve weapons, training and vast sums to the Islamists who hated the attempt by the Soviet client Afghan regime because it had attempted to end debt slavery through land reform, end child marriage and educate women. The Taliban and al-Qaeda grew out of the seeds planted by the Reagan administraion in the 1980s.

Of course, back then, Reagan was also allied with Saddam, because Saddam was fighting Iran. Reagan sent some guy named Donald Rumsfeld to meet with Saddam, and finesse that support's little hitch over Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

The National Security Archive, at George Washington University:

Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting.

Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person."

Of course, as
James Ridgeway writes in the Village Voice:

When Ronald Reagan dispatched Donald Rumsfeld as his special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in 1984, the Republican administration was anxious to stop any westward expansion of the Ayatollah Khomeini and his force of Shia madmen, who had taken power in Tehran.

To that end, the U.S. sent war supplies and offered intelligence to Saddam to keep the Iranians from beating Iraq in the war then raging between the two countries.

Need I go on?

Do they do anything but fuel the fire, first on one side, then the other?

Is there any greater threat to American national security than a Rebublican American administration? Posted

by Turkana at 3:19 AM Comments | Trackback

A False Choice for Pakistan: Benazir Bhutto

By Benazir Bhutto

Monday, March 12, 2007; A13

Last month President Bush told Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan that he must be more aggressive in hunting down al-Qaeda and the Taliban along his country's border with Afghanistan. During his recent visit to Islamabad, Vice President Cheney echoed the claim that al-Qaeda members were training in Pakistan's tribal areas and called on Musharraf to shut down their operations. British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett also expressed concern recently about suspected terrorist safe havens.

Clearly, the pressure is on. Western leaders are finally beginning to recognize that Musharraf's regime has been unsuccessful in taming the Taliban, which has regrouped in the tribal areas of Pakistan while the military regime has given up trying to establish order on the Afghan border. At the same time, the regime has strategically chosen to help the United States when international criticism of the terrorists' presence becomes strident. The arrest of Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, a top Taliban strategist, by Pakistani authorities late last month is a case in point. The timing, right on the heels of American and British pleas for renewed toughness, is too convenient. Akhund was arrested solely to keep Western governments at bay.

There are other political calculations in all of this. For too long, the international perception has been that Musharraf's regime is the only thing standing between the West and nuclear-armed fundamentalists.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Islamic parties have never garnered more than 13 percent in any free parliamentary elections in Pakistan. The notion of Musharraf's regime as the only non-Islamist option is disingenuous and the worst type of fear-mongering.

Much has been said about Pakistan being a key Western ally in the war against terrorism. It is the fifth-largest recipient of U.S. aid -- the Bush administration proposed $785 million in its latest budget. Yet terrorism around the world has increased. Why is it that all terrorist plots -- from the Sept. 11 attacks, to Madrid, to London, to Mumbai -- seem to have roots in Islamabad?

Pakistan's military and intelligence services have, for decades, used religious parties for recruits. Political madrassas -- religious schools that preach terrorism by perverting the faith of Islam -- have spread by the tens of thousands.

The West has been shortsighted in dealing with Pakistan. When the United States aligns with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, it compromises the basic democratic principles of its foundation -- namely, life, liberty and justice for all. Dictatorships such as Musharraf's suppress individual rights and freedoms and empower the most extreme elements of society. Oppressed citizens, unable to represent themselves through other means, often turn to extremism and religious fundamentalism.

Restoring democracy through free, fair, transparent and internationally supervised elections is the only way to return Pakistan to civilization and marginalize the extremists. A democratic Pakistan, free from the yoke of military dictatorship, would cease to be a breeding ground for international terrorism.

Indeed, Pakistan's return to democracy is essential to America's success in South and Central Asia, as well as in the Middle East, as democratization is an integral part of fighting terrorism. Wouldn't it therefore be prudent to tie aid money to genuine political reform?

Pakistan must take steps toward hunting down al-Qaeda operatives in the "ungovernable" tribal and border areas -- which were once successfully governed by democratically elected civilian governments. The regime must also stop its intimidation tactics of recent weeks, which include brutal murders, assassination attempts and other attacks on opposition party members.

Of course Musharraf's regime, to legitimize its coup and divert attention from the institutionalized corruption of the military, accuses Pakistan's secular, democratic parties of corruption. But according to Transparency International, 67 percent of the people believe the regime is corrupt, surpassing the rate for past civilian governments. Musharraf's regime has lasted twice as long as any civilian government in Pakistan. Yet not one of its ministers or key political supporters has been investigated.

The National Accountability Bureau has persecuted opposition leaders for a decade on unproven corruption and mismanagement charges, hoping to grind them into submission. However, when politicians accused of corruption cross over to the regime, the charges miraculously disappear. Musharraf's regime exploits the judicial system as yet another instrument of coercion and intimidation to consolidate its illegitimate power. But the politics of personal destruction will not prevent me and other party leaders from bringing our case before the people of our nation this year, even if that could lead to imprisonment.

In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush said, "The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security: We must."

This holds true for countries in South and Central Asia as well. Now is the time to force Pakistan's government to make good on its promise to return to democracy.

The writer is chairwoman of the Pakistan People's Party and served as prime minister of Pakistan from 1988 to 1990 and from 1993 to 1996. She lives in exile in Dubai.

Afghanistan's 'Hard Mission' Slips Away

Related

US State Dept Report: Human Rights in Afghanistan

--
consortiumnews.com

By Richard L. Fricker
March 10, 2007

Canadian lawmakers have written an Afghanistan version of the Iraq Study Group report, reaching a conclusion that the conditions on that original battlefront in the “war on terror” are grave and deteriorating.

The 16-page Canadian Senate report, entitled “Taking a Hard Look at a Hard Mission,” foresees a conflict that could drag on for generations and might well fail unless NATO significantly increases its commitment of money and troops.

“It is in our view doubtful that this mission can be accomplished given the limited resources that NATO is currently investing in Afghanistan,” said the report by the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. “The current NATO contingent doesn’t have enough troops to go toe-to-toe with the Taliban.”

Former Canadian Ambassador to Afghanistan Chris Alexander told the committee that it would take five generations to “make a difference in Afghanistan,” while Land Forces Commander Andrew Leslie estimated that it would take at least two decades to complete the mission.

NATO has roughly 32,000 troops in Afghanistan, including 15,000 Americans and 2,500 Canadians. Another 12,000 American troops under U.S. command conduct missions ranging from counter-terrorism to training Afghan forces.

In 2001 after the 9/11 attacks were blamed on al-Qaeda operatives based in Afghanistan, the United States led an invasion of the rugged country, toppling its Taliban government and trapping many al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, in the mountains of Tora Bora along the Pakistani border.

At that crucial moment in December 2001, however, President George W. Bush failed to deploy adequate U.S. military forces to capture bin Laden, who managed to escape on horseback with some of his key lieutenants into Pakistan.

Bush then redirected the attention of the U.S. military and intelligence services toward Iraq in preparation for the invasion on March 19, 2003. Since then, the conflict in Iraq has absorbed the bulk of U.S. military resources and political attention.

Al-Qaeda Resurgence

Over those past five years, al-Qaeda has regrouped in the mountains of Pakistan and the Taliban has reemerged as a potent force inside Afghanistan, where NATO forces are anticipating a fierce spring offensive by Taliban fighters. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Bush Is Losing the War on Terror."]

The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan has ratcheted up political and military pressure on America’s NATO allies who had expected their Afghan deployments to concentrate mostly on peacekeeping and reconstruction, not fighting a major counterinsurgency war.

U.S. aerial assaults also have killed substantial numbers of civilians and thus deepened Afghani resentment of Westerners. That local anger and the broader fury in the Muslim world over the Iraq War have attracted a flow of Islamic militants to Afghanistan as well as to Iraq.

When Vice President Dick Cheney was visiting a U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Feb. 27, a Taliban fighter blew himself apart at the gate of the base, killing 23 people but not directly endangering Cheney. The attack, however, was a reminder of the Taliban’s determination to challenge the presence of Westerners on Afghan territory.

“The Afghans are holding elections in their own minds as to whether or not the Westerners can provide the wherewithal to make life better or let the Taliban come back; at least they are predictable,” Canadian Committee Chairman Colin Kenny told me. “We have a very short window of time in which to show them we can assist them.”

Dawn Black, a member of the House of Commons and the New Democratic Party’s voice on defense and security issues, also expressed doubts about assurances from Canada’s Conservative government regarding what it calls generally positive trends in the conflict.

“The government says things are improving,” Black told me. “I was there last month. The security situation is such that they didn’t feel it was safe enough for us to leave the air base” at Kandahar.

When the Canadian delegation did visit an encampment of Afghans “just beyond the wire, the people are starving,” Black said.

Black also complained that heavy-handed military tactics have alienated the Afghani population and set back the goal of winning hearts and minds.

“How are you winning the hearts and minds of these people when you drive a tank through their farms?” Black said. “The NDP would like to see Canada withdraw from the combat mission.”

Election Chances

Canada’s Senate national security committee is dominated by Liberals and Conservatives, but the NDP could play a pivotal role in future Canadian policy in Afghanistan, especially if the Conservative minority government of Stephen Harper is forced into a new election.

Harper, a staunch ally of President Bush, is struggling in opinion polls, dragged down in part by the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. If neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals can win a clear electoral victory, the NDP could be the power broker deciding who will form the next Canadian government. [For more on the politics, see Consortiumnews.com's "Bush's Canadian Clone in Jeopardy."]

Harper has proposed an additional $200 million aid package that would go to the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai despite concerns over widespread corruption. Sen. Kenny, a Liberal, questioned the wisdom of pouring money into that black hole.

“Canadians will not be able to see how their tax dollars are being spent,” Kenny told me. “I think there will be a lot of money going to a number of people to enhance their Swiss bank accounts. Perhaps some of it will get through to the Afghan people.”

The committee report, released in February, recommended redirecting aid through the military to ensure that more of the money actually reaches the population.

Overall, the report saw few bright spots.

“Anyone expecting to see the emergence in Afghanistan within the next several decades of a recognizable modern democracy capable of delivering justice and amenities to its people is dreaming in Technicolor,” the report said.

“The three primary forces in Afghan politics [are] armed power, tribal loyalties and corruption,” the report said. “Eliminating corruption in a place like Afghanistan is probably a pipe dream. …

“Any attempts to centralize control are complicated by the fact that Afghanistan’s economy is almost totally dependent on the sale of opium, and the opium marketplace is controlled by the warlords and, increasingly, the Taliban.”

The Canadian senators made little effort to sugarcoat the challenges ahead.

“The Taliban have time and geography on their side,” the report said. “Afghanistan is considerably more backward than other difficult areas like Iraq, Iran and Palestine. Whatever changes are made here are going to take many generations to effect and any early reforms are unlikely to present Canadians with the kinds of successes that might easily be seen to justify our involvement in Afghanistan.”

The report summed up the local situation by saying, “People outside Kabul are generally far more dependent on their traditional Sharia courts and systems of government than they are on the central government. …While NATO is proud of the fact that national elections have taken place, these elections have proven to be all but irrelevant to Afghans in places like Kandahar.”

The committee also took the Canadian International Development Agency to task for insisting “that it has a number of development projects underway in the province, but no one was able to show us.”

Beyond the lack of proof that Canada’s commitment was improving the lives of Afghans, the report noted that “life is clearly more perilous because we are there. That doesn’t mean that Canada shouldn’t be there…but it does mean that the ordinary citizen of Kandahar is living in a war zone that he or she wouldn’t be living in if NATO troops weren’t there.

Politics Lite: No Sacrifice, No Substance, No Success: RORY STEWART

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
GUEST COLUMNIST

Politics Lite: No Sacrifice, No Substance, No Success

By RORY STEWART

Published: March 10, 2007

It is patronizing to assume that voters can’t handle demanding, imaginative and risky policies.

The accepted wisdom in British political circles is that Tony Blair won three elections by giving the British voters charisma and energy unfettered by dull or controversial policies. The Tories have now taken the lesson to heart. They are fighting back with feel-good, idea-light campaigns of their own, and it seems to be working. They are now significantly ahead in the polls.

This is not just electoral strategy. Many of them believe that we live in a postideological age, that there are no great questions anymore and that there can be no new solutions for domestic poverty or problems with immigration, energy or the economy.

But why do people stand as politicians if they have no policies? Many politicians claim privately that they are simply concealing their policies until they are elected. It is more likely that when the winds of office change in their favor, they will find their faces frozen into an expression of affable inaction. The role of a modern politician is apparently to be likable, to tinker with existing institutions and to manage occasional crises.

Churchill has been replaced by Bertie Wooster.

In Iraq, hundreds of thousands have died over the last few years and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent by the U.S.-led coalition. The international system is fractured; the Islamic world is angry.

--MORE

Pakistan makes a deal with the Taliban

Pakistan makes a deal with the Taliban

Pakistan has made a deal to give logistical support to the Taliban in southwest Afghanistan. Islamabad desperately wants a foothold in the country and the Taliban need more muscle for their resistance. Veteran Taliban commander and diplomatic facilitator Mullah Dadullah is making it all happen, even as US Vice President Dick Cheney urges Islamabad to "get tough on the Taliban".
---

Cheney meets a general in his labyrinth
The congruence of interests between the Bush administration and the regime of President General Pervez Musharraf has no parallel in previous US-Pakistan relations. To belittle the general, to chastise him like an errant schoolboy over the Taliban and al-Qaeda - this was the last thing US Vice President Dick Cheney had in mind. In the big picture, which includes Iran, the US has a vital role for Islamabad. - M K Bhadrakumar (Feb 28, '07)

Cheney OK after Afghan Assassination Attempt Blast; 23 killed

Update: Cheney OK After Afghan Blast; 23 Killed
Related

• Taliban says targets Cheney in Afghan suicide blast Reuters, 16 minutes ago
• Cheney leaves Afghanistan after visit marred by bombing AFP, 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
• Cheney Unhurt After Bombing in Afghanistan NYT
  
• ---
  

Cheney OK after Afghan Blast; 14 killed

By ALISA TANG, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 48 minutes ago

A suicide bomber attacked the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan Tuesday during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, killing at least 14 people and wounding a dozen more. The Taliban claimed responsibility and said Cheney was the target.

Cheney's spokeswoman said he was fine, and the vice president later met with President Hamid Karzai in the capital, Kabul, before leaving the country.

There were conflicting reports on the death toll. Provincial Gov. Abdul Jabar Taqwa said 20 people were killed, while NATO said initial reports indicated three fatalities, including a U.S. soldier, a South Korean coalition soldier and a U.S. government contractor whose nationality wasn't immediately known. NATO said 27 people also were wounded.

It was unclear why there was such a large discrepancy in the reports.

Associated Press reporters at the scene said they had seen the bodies of at least 12 people carried in black body bags and wooden coffins from near the base into a market area where hundreds of Afghans had gathered to mourn.

Maj. William Mitchell said it did not appear the explosion was intended as a threat to the vice president. "He wasn't near the site of the explosion," Mitchell said. "He was safely within the base at the time of the explosion."

However, a purported Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousef Ahmadi, said Cheney was the target of the attack.

"We knew that Dick Cheney would be staying inside the base," Ahmadi told AP telephone from an undisclosed location. "The attacker was trying to reach Cheney."

Ahmadi said the attack was carried out by an Afghan called Mullah Abdul Rahim from Logar province.

The explosion happened near the first of at least three gated checkpoints vehicles must pass through before gaining access to Bagram.

The sprawling base houses 5,100 U.S. troops and 4,000 other coalition forces and contractors. High security areas within the base are blocked by their own checkpoints. It was unclear how an attacker could expect to penetrate the base, locate the vice president and get close to him without detection.

"We maintain a high-level of security here at all times. Our security measures were in place and the killer never had access to the base," said Lt. Col. James E. Bonner, the base operations commander. "When he realized he would not be able to get onto the base he attacked the local population."

It was not the first attack apparently aimed at a top U.S. official in Afghanistan. In January 2006, a militant blew himself up in Uruzgan province during a supposedly secret visit by the U.S. ambassador, killing 10 Afghans.

Khan Shirin, a private security guard, sobbed near the dead body of his relative, Farvez, a truck driver and the representative of transport association that hauls goods for the U.S. base. Shirin said many of the people killed were truck drivers waiting to get inside the base.

Ajmall, a shopkeeper, said the "huge" blast shook a small market where he has a stall about 500 yards from the Bagram base. Ajmall, who goes by one name, said those wounded in the blast were taken inside the U.S. base for treatment.

One of the dozen U.S. soldiers standing guard near the blast site said that most bodies had been returned to their families, and that some may have died of their wounds at the military hospital.

"It's a bad, bad day," said the soldier, who declined to give his name.

South Korea's Defense Ministry said one of its troops stationed in Bagram, Sgt. Yoon Jang-ho, 27, was killed in the explosion. South Korea has about 200 engineers and medics in Bagram.

Cheney, who spent the night at Bagram, left the base about two hours after the 10 a.m. blast. The explosion sent up a plume of smoke visible by reporters inside the base traveling with Cheney, and American military officials declared a "red alert" inside the base.

Earlier, he ate with soldiers, telling reporters that "breakfast was excellent" but making no other comments.

In Kabul, Cheney was met by armed guards with guns drawn on the tarmac and was rushed by ground convoy to the presidential palace, where he and Karzai walked a long receiving line and past oriental rugs laid out on the wet, stone pavement.

Cheney and Karzai were expected to discuss the surge in violence in Afghanistan. Five years after their fundamentalist regime was toppled, Taliban-led militants have stepped up attacks and Afghan, U.S. and NATO forces are bracing for a fresh wave of violence in the spring.

There were 139 suicide bombings last year, a five-fold increase over 2005, and Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez has said he expects the number of suicide bombs to rise even further in 2007.

In the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, meanwhile, a suicide attacker targeting Afghan police blew himself up, wounding three people, said police officer Abdul Nafai.

NATO-led troops patrolling the city also fatally shot a civilian who drove too close to their convoy, police said, the third such fatal shooting this month. Squadron Leader David Marsh, a military spokesman, said soldiers had given signals for the car to stop but that it kept approaching.

___

Associated Press reporters Amir Shah in Bagram and Noor Khan in Kandahar contributed to this report.

Afghans See Marked Decline Since 2005

EDITOR'S NOTE: I AM MOVING OVER TO POST AT THE OTHER BLOG.
---
Violence, Corruption, U.S. Role Add to Unease and Loss of Confidence, Report Says

By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, February 24, 2007; A11

Conditions in Afghanistan have deteriorated markedly since 2005, with rising violence, government corruption and misguided U.S. efforts contributing to growing unease among the population, according to a report released yesterday based in part on 1,000 interviews with ordinary Afghans.

Although there were bright spots -- a better overall economy and more rights for women -- the report's authors found diminishing security as the Taliban steps up its attacks, a discredited justice system and a severe lack of basic services such as electricity. The report, produced by the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies and funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development, also found that Afghans tend to be more negative in their outlook than official statistics or media accounts would suggest.

"Public fear and frustration are on the rise in Afghanistan. As a result, Afghans are beginning to disengage from national governing processes and lose confidence in their leadership," according to the report. "Dramatic changes are required in the coming weeks, or 2007 will become the breaking point."

That statement echoed remarks made earlier this month by the departing U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry, who told a congressional panel that "a point could be reached at which the government of Afghanistan becomes irrelevant to its people, and the goal of establishing a democratic, moderate, self-sustaining state could be lost forever."

A year ago, U.S. officials were speaking much more optimistically about Afghanistan. But an especially violent summer, fed by an increasingly aggressive insurgency, has convinced many policymakers that Afghanistan is at a precarious moment more than five years after a U.S.-led military campaign knocked the Taliban from power. Last week, President Bush pledged $11.8 billion in aid for Afghanistan over the next two years and said U.S. forces would be increased by 3,200 to 27,000, the highest level of the war.

Among the report's recommendations are to shift the focus away from eradicating poppy fields and toward interdiction, to give local communities more control over aid money, and to abandon major military sweeps that inflict damage on civilians in favor of rapid-response forces that can protect Afghans in emergencies. "NATO and the United States' 'big army' military operations and emphasis on foot soldier 'kills' are doing more damage than good," the report said.

Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Pentagon spokesman, said he could not comment on the report's recommendations because he had not seen them, but he said part of the reason the United States is committing more troops to Afghanistan is to improve response times. Britain said yesterday it would also be sending additional troops.

The report's release came on a day when thousands of people rallied in Kabul to support a bill in the Afghan parliament that would provide amnesty for Afghans accused of war crimes. It also came as a man who claimed to be senior Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah told Reuters in a telephone interview that "this year will prove to be the bloodiest for the foreign troops." The man claimed that "6,000 fighters are ready for attacks."

Pakistan to cede tribal area to Taliban

Pakistan: A Bajaur 'peace deal' is coming

Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province and Federally Administered Tribal Areas

A peace deal in imminent in Bajaur, despite the worsening situation in the tribal agencies

The Pakistani government is preparing to cede the Federally Administered Tribal Agency of Bajaur to the Taliban. Jan Aurakzai, the governor of the Northwest Frontier Province, has informed the media that a 'peace deal' fashioned after the Waziristan Accord is imminent, Dawn reports.

Bajaur has long been an al-Qaeda command and control center. The Taliban and al-Qaeda funnel their northern Afghanistan operations from Bajaur. Afghanistan's Kunar province, which sits just across the border from Bajaur, is one of the most violent provinces in Afghanistan.

Last October, the Pakistani government was just 24 hours from signing an agreement with the 'Pakistani Taliban' of Maulana Faqir Mohamed's Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (or TNSM, which translates to the Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Sharia) when airstrikes hit a Taliban training camp in a madrassa Chingai. While the Pakistani government claimed responsibility, this was likely a U.S. Special Operations strike designed to sabotage the deal.

Liaquat Hussain, one of Faqir's lieutenants who ran the Chingai camp, was killed, along with 80 Taliban. Faqir Mohamed narrowly escaped death. Up to five al-Qaeda operatives were believed to have been at the Chingai camp. Intelligence indicated Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's second in command, and Matiur Rehman, a high-ranking leader in al-Qaeda's in Pakistan and operational planner of the failed London plots, may have been in the madrassa. After the airstrike, TNSM, Jamaat-ud-Dawa's, which is just the banned al-Qaeda affiliate Lashkar-e-Taiba only renamed, and the Taliban supporting Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) political party held large protests in Bajaur and throughout the tribal areas and the NWFP.

During a tribal jirga (or council) just days prior to the Chingai airstrike, Faqir Mohamed called “Osama Bin Laden and Mulla Omar 'heroes of the Muslim world' and vowed joint efforts to fight the 'enemies of peace' in Bajaur Agency.” He also lamented the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan. TNSM is a banned organization in Pakistan, and Faqir Mohamed was once a wanted man in Pakistan for his role in sheltering al-Qaeda terrorists. NBC News' Mushtaq Yusufzai calls Faqir an “Yet Faqir is free to negotiate with the government and TNSM remains in tact and in control of Bajaur.

NWFP governor Jan Aurakazi has long been an advocate of promoting further peace deals with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the tribal areas. Even after the Bajaur airstrike last fall, and TNSM's subsequent denouncements of the government and campaign of assassinations and attacks on government forces, which included a suicide attack that killed over 40 Pakistani soldiers, Aurakazi pushed to continue with negotiations with the Taliban.

Pakistan has lost control of its western territories, and is attempting to put the best face on this failure by cutting deals that cannot and will not enforce, and then claiming success. Musharraf, Aurakazi and a host of Pakistani political and military leaders continue to claim success with the Waziristan Accord, and promote the false hope that further peace deals can bring peace in the west.

This failure comes at the expense of security in Afghanistan, the West, as al-Qaeda is plotting strikes and training terrorist from the tribal areas, and within Pakistan itself. The Taliban are openly pushing their agenda in the Northwest Frontier Territory, and are conducting a nationwide terror campaign to cower the government. The peace deals in North and south Waziristan, the upcoming deal in Bajaur and others soon to follow, and the inability to take action against the terrorists inside their own borders poses a direct threat to the existence of the Pakistani state.

Tags:

• Pakistan

By Bill Roggio on February 24, 2007 9:49 AM