Moby Media Updates Archives 2008 MMU: A Wake-Up Call From Afghanistan, 23 July 2008
| MMU: A Wake-Up Call From Afghanistan, 23 July 2008 |
|
|
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT
Last week's Quqnoos online poll shows that 82.2% of voters believe the Pakistani ISI was behind Indian Embassy Bombing. Click here to read more.
A Wake-Up Call From Afghanistan
No articles featured today
4 US soldiers killed in mine explosion No articles featured today No articles featured today
FEATURE STORY Increased Fighting Draws More Attention to the Strain Posed by the Iraq War
Washington Post - Asia/Pasific ST. CHARLES, Mo., July 22 -- For Kurt Zwilling, the nine days since his soldier son was killed in an assault on a U.S. outpost in Afghanistan have been like living in a faded photograph. He stood near his son's coffin yesterday and told mourners, "You know, right now the world looks a little bit off. The colors are not as bright." Cpl. Gunnar W. Zwilling, 20, was one of nine U.S. soldiers to die in a predawn attack that highlighted a dangerous new phase in an Afghan conflict that has received far less attention than the battle for Iraq. Some call it the forgotten war, but it seems about to be remembered. When insurgents mustered superior numbers and overpowered U.S. and Afghan forces in remote Konar province on July 13, more U.S. soldiers died than were killed by enemy action in all of Iraq during the first three weeks in July. A pattern began to emerge about three months ago: Since May 1, 52 American troops have been killed in action in Afghanistan, compared with 43 in a quieting Iraq. The growing casualties and the resurgence of the Taliban and its anti-American allies have prompted vows by President Bush and his aspiring successors to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Bush said recently that he intends to send three more brigades, or about 10,000 soldiers, to a rugged land where about 32,000 U.S. troops are now stationed. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) agreed last week that more troops are needed, while Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has long favored sending at least two more combat brigades, partly by shifting forces from Iraq. "I can't put a number on it, but there are going to be more. We're short of NATO troops. We're short of American troops. We're short 3,000 trainers of the Afghan army," said Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "If we're going to come out of there successful, we've got to have more troops." At a time when the Iraq war remains deeply unpopular, the shifting dynamic is likely to test the country's willingness to support the commitment of more troops and money to a lesser-known war in a distant theater. Opinion polls and a random sampling in this Missouri River town suggest cautious support, particularly if the mission is sharply focused and is conducted with the help of U.S. allies. "Seems like the Taliban's built back up and it's becoming a problem again," said Ray Lesley, a carpenter stocking up at One Stop Beer, Bait and Bullets. "Finish the job, increase the troops or otherwise withdraw. There's no point in sacrificing lives if you don't accomplish your job." Debbie Stanger, visiting from neighboring Illinois, said she wants to see American leaders "focus more on what they need to get at," adding: "It seems a lot of killing is going on and they need to focus on getting the bad guys." A narrow majority of respondents in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll said the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting -- far more than say the same about Iraq. Fifty-one percent said the United States must win in Afghanistan to succeed in the broader terrorism fight, yet just 44 percent said military action there has been successful, down from 70 percent in 2002. "I'd say you have to get 'em. That's where the terrorists are hidden," said Mike Burns, a labor union executive who remains worried about the high costs of twin wars. "That's a NATO mission, too." Zwilling, a 173rd Airborne paratrooper, had been in Afghanistan longer than a year and was due to return to his base in Italy this week. He had already bought a plane ticket to Cancun to celebrate. When he learned of the mission to build a remote outpost for arriving troops, he fretted in a phone call and e-mails to his father that American troops and their Afghan partners would be outgunned. He predicted "a bloodbath," according to his uncle Gary Zwilling, a Vietnam veteran. "I don't want to say 'frightened.' I want to say 'hesitant,' because he wasn't afraid of anything. They knew there was going to be major trouble," Zwilling said as friends filed into a funeral home here. "I just wish we could finish this. I want this to stop. You don't have to keep sending young boys off to die," said Zwilling. He describes himself as "conservative and pro-military" and considers his nephew's death avoidable. "I know mistakes are made. War is not a science. But they've got to keep from making the mistakes." His own view is that more U.S. troops should go to Afghanistan and, if necessary, neighboring Pakistan, to chase enemy insurgents: "Follow them in there and take care of it." Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.), recently back from Afghanistan, senses a "realization" among his constituents that Afghanistan is "a festering place, and more and more is where we need to focus our attention." "People are weary of war in general and the high human and financial costs," Carnahan said. "But I think people more and more see the distinction, because that's where the 9/11 attacks were organized from." Kurt Zwilling spoke not of greater causes but of his lost son at Wednesday's memorial service, where Gunnar was remembered by one aunt as "dark-eyed little hell-raiser" and blessed by another who said the angels "now have better music and are better armed." As his surviving son, Alex, an airman serving in Iraq, draped a uniformed arm over his shoulders, Zwilling told of the last time he saw Gunnar, home on leave. "He just said to me, 'I would like to tell you something, Dad.' He said, 'If something happens to me, I want you all to go on. I want you to live a happy, long life.' And he looked at me and he said, 'You remember this.' "He said, 'My last thoughts before I die will be of you.' "And he kissed me. He hugged me and he turned around and walked onto the plane." Zwilling said he felt "honored, honored," to be father of Gunnar, who was awarded the Bronze Star yesterday. Long after life for so many others has moved on, he said, the family will be left "to pick up the pieces of our shattered hearts and the unquenchable thirst for the love of our lives." Staff researcher Madonna Lebling in Washington contributed to this report.
BUSINESS 4 US soldiers killed in mine explosion
http://www.quqnoos.com/ A mine explosion in Farah province kills 4 US soldiers while mine clearing Four soldiers of US special forces have been killed in a mine explosion in a road in the Bakwa District of Farah Province. Mohammad Yunus Rasooli, the Deputy Governor of Farah Province said that these soldiers were killed while clearing mines on this road. He said Pakistani Taliban laid mines last week on the road ending in Dilaram District, after they entered Bakwa District of Farah Province, American tanks was removing the mines, when one mine exploded and destroyed the American Tank, killing four American soldiers. Last month 4 American soldiers were killed in another mine explosion in the same District of Farah Province. Afghanistan's Police Force Needs 2,300 More Trainers, U.S. Says
Bloomberg Afghanistan needs an additional 2,300 international personnel to train its police force, the U.S. commander in charge of instructing the nation's security forces said. ``The Afghan police are several years behind the Afghan army in terms of capability and in terms of trust of the Afghan people,'' Major General Robert Cone told reporters in Washington yesterday. While the nation has 79,000 police officers, many are unable to operate independently, Cone said in a video news conference from Afghanistan. He called on coalition partners to help meet the shortfall in instructors. A Pentagon-funded report last month said Afghan police officers were often corrupt and that it would take at least a decade to build an acceptable force. The United Nations has said President Hamid Karzai's government is beset by a corrupt justice system that is hampering the fight against the Taliban. ``People understand that in the end game for Afghanistan, police and the rule of law and the security that they provide is an essential component,'' said Cone, according to a U.S. government transcript. The major focus is on training police officers at a district level, with an emphasis on ``things like values, constitutional responsibilities, rule of law,'' he said. The eight-week program has been completed in 20 districts, said Cone, adding it is a ``long, slow process.'' `Corrupt, Incompetent' Afghan police have been ``corrupt, incompetent, under- resourced and often loyal to local commanders rather than to the central government,'' the National Defense Research Institute, a center run by the Washington-based RAND Corporation, said in a report last month for the Pentagon. Training officers was a low priority for the U.S. until 2005, according to the report. Police are failing to win the trust of the local population as officers demand bribes, loot shops and compete for posts on opium smuggling routes where they can extort the most money, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group said last year. Karzai's government is supported by about 70,000 soldiers from more than 40 countries battling an insurgency by supporters of the Taliban. The regime was ousted in 2001 by a U.S.-led coalition after it refused to hand over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Abdul Rasaq, a Taliban commander in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province, was killed with three of his fighters in a July 20 missile strike north of Musa Qala, Agence France-Presse reported, citing the U.K. Ministry of Defence. Mullah Rahim, another senior Taliban leader, gave himself up to authorities in Pakistan hours earlier, the ministry said in a statement, according to AFP. To contact the reporter on this story: Ed Johnson in Sydney at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . 'Special Report' Panel on Barack Obama's Trip to Afghanistan and Iraq
FOXNews This is a rush transcript of "Special Report With Brit Hume" from July 21, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan, and I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front on our battle against terrorism. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And you can't choose to lose a war in Iraq, in my view, in order to win in Afghanistan. Of course we have problems in Afghanistan, and as we succeed in Iraq there will be troops available to go to Afghanistan. (END VIDEO CLIP) BIRT HUME, HOST: So you see the debate joined between John McCain and Barack Obama, Obama finding his experience in Afghanistan reinforcing, apparently his view that Afghanistan must be the point of focus and not Iraq, McCain saying you can't lose one to win the other. Some thoughts on this news from Fred Barnes, the executive editor of The Weekly Standard; Jeff Birnbaum, columnist of The Washington Post, and the syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer - FOX News contributors all. While we have been on the air here, Obama has said in an interview with ABC News that he does not change his view of the surge, that it was wise for him to oppose it. He is not, apparently, disputing that the surge has succeeded militarily. So what about all of this, what about the trip, Fred? FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Well, there are two things to say about it. One is this business about the surge. To start with, Barack Obama has acknowledged the gains that have been made there militarily and otherwise, although he said that there needs to be more done politically, which everybody would agree with. But somehow the surge is not the cause of that, and he would vote against it? That just doesn't make any sense. I think he's going to have trouble if he maintains that position. Obviously, the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy that has been put in place by General Petraeus is the cause of the military gains and, ultimately, the political gains. That's one plus one equals two. So I don't think he can maintain that, anymore than he can maintain this idea of turning what is basically a Democratic talking point that Afghanistan is more important than Iraq into a piece of high strategic policy. That's crazy. Look, in the remote Afghanistan, in the mountains of Pakistan, if you could pick a place in the world where you would like to have Al-Qaeda stuck, that's it. And yet he says this is more important than Iraq, a country that is on the verge of becoming a stable Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle East, an oil rich country? That's crazy. That's the first part. The second part in this trip so far, in making himself look like a world leader, he's done pretty well. It looks good, but what he says is ultimately going to get him into trouble. JEFF BIRNBAUM, COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: I don't know. I think that he has a remarkable convergence here on policy. Prime Minister Maliki appears to be moving in Obama's direction, or Obama in Maliki's direction last week. Clearly, there are time frames that Maliki and President Bush are coming close to, goals of getting troops out, and Maliki told Der Spiegel, the German magazine, that he likes the idea of 16 months, with some changes, I think is how the translation read. HUME: Some room for changes. BIRNBAUM: Some room for changes, that's right. So I think this was a very special gift to the Obama visit and the Obama campaign. We haven't heard from Maliki himself, even though Obama and Maliki did speak just today, I think. HUME: Then the Iraqi government was saying today through some spokesman that the year 2010 looked like a reasonable-that's not inconsistent with what Obama said. BIRNBAUM: Not inconsistent-very close. HUME: So where does that leave McCain, and where does that leave policy, Charles? CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: It really hurts McCain and it really helps Obama. This was a stroke of luck or design. Maliki's playing a really interesting game. He basically cast his vote in favor of Obama. And you have to ask yourself why. I think it's because he thinks that the war strategically is won. The threat to Iraq as a stable state and his government's existence is over. It was in question, in jeopardy two years ago and the surge has worked. Even though there will be other attacks - HUME: Isn't it the case, too, Charles, that Maliki has consistently overrated the ability of his military to do things, and it had been an issue between him and the Bush administration in the past? They have had to bring him along. KRAUTHAMMER: That is true. He overestimates his strength, which I think is an error. But, look, I'm trying to understand how he looks at it. He thinks he is stronger than perhaps he is, let's just assume that. But he thinks he is going to be in power, and the threats to the existence of his state are essentially over. So now he is asking who do I want to be on the other side negotiating with me a status of forces agreement, a McCain or an Obama? A McCain who sees an American presence as equivalent of what we have in Japan or Korea or Germany, which means America stay. It uses its influence. It has freedom of action and projects its power by staying in the area, staying in Iraq. Now, he probably would prefer an America that is not that important, involved, active in his country. And that's what he gets out of Obama. Obama wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. He does not understand as McCain does that there is a great strategic advantage in having an alliance, a relationship with Iraq in which, for example, you might have American air bases deterring Iran, being a listening post, and relieving our need to use our naval assets in the region and using them elsewhere. So he looks at this in a larger perspective. And Maliki, as an Iraqi nationalist, wants to have a president who wants less. And that's why I think he is endorsing Obama. BIRNBAUM: I don't think Obama is ruling out some sort of military presence, though much smaller, in Iraq. (CROSSTALK) BIRNBAUM: But if you have the prime minister of the country defining victory basically, how do you have us defining victory a different way? I think it's a difficult question. BARNES: I couldn't agree with you more. Maliki has given gift. But, on the other hand, look at some of the things that Obama is saying. That's what - I was criticizing something completely different from that. Clearly he did, and that's why I say politically and just appearing. And by appearances, Obama has gone away so far. He was invited in to see Maliki. He sits in the head of state seat right by Maliki where Bush would sit. He's just a candidate. KRAUTHAMMER: He had a good day. BARNES: He did. HUME: Saturday was the carrot, today was the stick, or was it? Secretary Rice is warning the Iranians to get serious about nuclear concessions. We'll talk about carrots and sticks in Iran, and all that, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HUME: Well, we were going to discuss the goings on with Iran over the weekend, but during the break we decided we ought to talk about two things-one, what Barack Obama said this evening about the surge, and also what The New York Times and John McCain had to do with each other over an article by McCain submitted to The Times. First, Barack Obama comments. He was asked by ABC News tonight, and I quote from the text of the interview "If you had it to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?" Obama- "No, because keep in mind that question-" "You wouldn't?" "Keep in mind these type of hypotheticals. It's very difficult to know. Hindsight is 20/20." Later, "But I think that what I'm absolutely convinced of is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with." Barack Obama on why he would still vote against the surge and believed it was the right thing to do. What about that, Charles? KRAUTHAMMER: That's 100 percent gibberish. I have heard it try to fill airspace, but that is a failure at filling airspace, and all of us have tried that at times. That sentence doesn't start anywhere and doesn't end anywhere. There's no actual answer, because, in fact, he made a mistake on the surge. That is not an opinion, it is a fact that the surge has worked. Everybody has agreed it has worked, and he was against it. HUME: He said at the time he gave the reasons that it wouldn't solve the political problems, that it was straining our military. BARNES: It would increase sectarian violence rather than quell it. HUME: What he says now is the reason was further strains on the military, and it didn't solve the political problems. What he said at the time, though, was that it wouldn't work militarily. BARNES: It wouldn't work militarily, and would make things worse, that sectarian violence would get worse. Look, there is a perfectly good answer here that I think he could give. Why didn't he just say-look, I voted against it, and I still have qualms about it, but, you know, it has worked. Violence is gone. There is great movement on the political side. There needs to be more political unification, but I'm glad to see it. And in fact, what I think has happened in Iraq means that my plan for removing almost all American troops and at least all combat in 16 months works- HUME: Don't you think David Axelrod, the Obama campaign manager, should call Fred Barnes? BARNES: I know, but for some reason Barack Obama can never admit that he is wrong. He quits public financing, and he says he going to the real public financing. HUME: I know. Now, The New York Times has sent back for revisions a proposed John McCain op-ed piece contribution that comes after one that was published by Barack Obama in which Barack Obama set forth his policy on Iraq. In doing so, The Times said what, Jeff? BIRNBAUM: The Times said that they would very much like to publish a response, but what was sent in needs to be rewritten because it needs to be, essentially, less an attack on Obama and more about McCain's proposals in Iraq that includes actual-"timetables" is the word that's included there - and a how- HUME: For a withdrawal? BIRNBAUM: For a withdrawal, and how victory can be achieved there. In effect, The New York Times is asking McCain to respond to Obama's position on Iraq on Obama's terms, and present something that he, McCain, opposes, which is timetables, which is a very surprising response. May it's just maybe loosely written. It's not unusual at all to ask for revisions of op-ed pieces. But the use of "timetables," the word by The New York Time's response, I think is a gift to the McCain campaign, because they can say the liberal New York Times is shutting the door on a legitimate response from us. KRAUTHAMMER: Look, if a paper offers space to a presidential candidate, and there are only two left, it should offer equal space to the other, and it shouldn't be dictating what's written. Everybody knows when you see an op-ed written by a senator or a presidential candidate, he didn't actually write it. It's the staff, and Obama has a staff, apparently, of 400 working on foreign policy. He's got his own state department that he lugs around with him wherever he goes. So this is a committee report, and it's his position, you know, massaged and edited, and McCain deserves the right to have a response in the way he wants to. It's absurd to demand that it be along Democratic guidelines. HUME: So this will go down as the day that Maliki gave Obama a gift and the editors of The New York Times gave McCain a gift. BARNES: The Maliki's gift's better, though. Huge protests in Kabul by Hazara community
Written by http://www.quqnoos.com/ & PAN Thousands of people turn out for peaceful protests in Kabul in support of Hazaras in Behsood Despite warnings from the National Directorate of Security, Hazara people today took part in large demonstrations in the Dashti Barchi area of Kabul. These demonstrations have been organized in support of the Hazara people of Behsood in Maidan Wardak Province, who have recently been involved in disputes with Koochis on ownership of land. These demonstrators, whose number reached thousands, were carrying photos of Abdul Ali Mazari ex- Leader of Wahdat Party, Haji Mohammad Muhaqiq Member of Parliament and the victims (Hazaras) of the conflicts of Behsood. The demonstrations started at 7:30 am and was moving towards the Office of UNAMA. In the meantime, President Karzai has ordered Koochis to leave the Behsood area, and Koochis have commenced leavingthis area. ast night Sayeed Ansari a spokesperson for the NDS said in a news conference that after orders from Karzai were delivered, the situation has improved, and there is no need for demonstrations. He also said that NDS has information that some agents may be intending to disrupt the demonstrations and turn them violent. The speaker of the NDS warned that in case of any violence and insecurity the organizers of the demonstrations will be held responsible for the consequences. It has been said that these demonstrations were organized by Muhaqiq, who is a parliamentarian in the lower house. One hour before the start of these demonstrations a suicide bomb exploded in front of Babur Gardens, injuring three civilians. These demonstrations have so far been peaceful although the Afghan National Army, Security and Border Police, Anti-violence Police, Students of Police Academy, Anti-Terrorism Police, and Officials of NDS are all involved in controlling security for the event. The demonstrators were carrying many signs and chanting slogans like "We want Article of 14 of the constitution to be applied". Article 14 of Constitution states the "the government should plan and apply effective programs for the development of agriculture and livestock and the improvement of the social, economical and social conditions of farmers and ranchers". This conflict originated more than two years ago and resulted in causalities on both sides (Koochis and Hazaras). Even though several commissions have been appointed to resolve the conflict no solution has been found till now with each side accusing the other for intrusion. Big changes for Afghanistan after US election, predicts expert
ABC Online, Australia Precarious and urgent; those were the words the US Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama chose to describe Afghanistan on his visit to Kabul yesterday. Mr Obama wants American troops redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan to deal with the worsening situation there. Both views are shared by Christopher Heffelfinger, consultant at the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy, who's visiting Australia at the moment. He says the war in Afghanistan is now at a critical point, with the Taliban in control of nearly 60 per cent of the country. Christopher Heffelfinger told me that whoever won the presidential election, US policy in Afghanistan was bound to change. CHRISTOPHER HEFFELFINGER: Whether Obama or McCain wins there's going to be a shift towards multinationalism, multilateralism again in United States. This unilateral approach that we've taken has, I think, widely been seen as a failure. And there's across the board, politically speaking, there's a need, a widespread need, I think everyone sees to bring people on board and convince them of the legitimacy of what we're doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other venue. And there will be again a renewed effort to bring partners into our efforts. It's not something we can do alone. MARK COLVIN: But can that be done given that a lot of the partners are not prepared to go and actually fight for instance? That they're only prepared to contribute reconstruction forces that work way behind the lines. CHRISTOPHER HEFFELFINGER: Well there are, there are partners who are there in combat roles; Australia is one of them actually. But going back to Obama's visit, this is maybe the first time that we've seen a US politician being greeted with that level of excitement overseas. People are actually glad to see him and interact with him, and looking forward to that. And that's a dramatic shift that a lot of us welcome in the United States. And so, you know, there is ... we haven't used up all the good will in the world towards the United States. I think there's still enough there to work with. And we will have to reduce some of our combat activities in Iraq. MARK COLVIN: So you're arguing for a shift of combat activities, a shift of troops from one theatre to another? CHRISTOPHER HEFFELFINGER: Essentially we just don't have. I don't think we have the troop forces to maintain in both ... at the levels that are needed. We would have needed far more troops, even with this so-called surge in Iraq we still would have needed many more troops to actually control the country and bring order over five years or whatever it may take. That is the same; we need a heightened effort in Afghanistan also. You know, we need far more troops over a long-term five, 10; maybe 20 years to bring security and to be able to maintain it there. MARK COLVIN: You saw yesterday Barack Obama, meeting apparently cordially meeting Gul Agha Sherzai, Governor of Nangarhar province, a man who is essentially a warlord with drug baron connections. Is that an indication of the kind of difficult alliances that America has to make in these areas? CHRISTOPHER HEFFELFINGER: Yeah, what we've been making those alliances all along I think. In Iraq there were, you know, the same tribes who were engages in combat against US soldiers are now our allies. And, you know, in some sense these are temporary alliances to bring security. We certainly don't share the values of everyone that is, for lack of a better word, "partner". But just even a temporary ally in bringing security we don't share all of their values, but we are trying to find something that resembles a peace. And I think part of the point of that is that there are many sides, it isn't just, you know, two sided narrative here of good guys and bad guys. There are many different interests in both of these countries. MARK COLVIN: But the reality then is that the heroin trade is being run by both the Taliban, which is a religious organisation which is supposed to oppose drugs, and also allies of the United States, which has been running a drug war for years. CHRISTOPHER HEFFELFINGER: I'm not sure that the United States is supporting that in any way. No we are ... we've brought in actually Colombian forces that we were, we had trained in that same war on dugs to help eradicate; to train Afghan police to eradicate heroin. So we are trying to actively reduce the amount of heroin that's coming to market through Afghanistan. MARK COLVIN: Do you think that Afghanistan is going to tip one way or the other? CHRISTOPHER HEFFELFINGER: No, I think it will, yeah. MARK COLVIN: Which way though? CHRISTOPHER HEFFELFINGER: Well that's why I think it's a critical time because if we don't put enough efforts into that conflict, into that theatre, it will tip in the favour of the Taliban. They've renewed their organisation. It's called the neo-Taliban. It's in some ways a new organisation, but it brings a lot of elements of the old. And if ..it's the same, the same formula that existed in Afghanistan 15 years ago that the Afghan people above anything else need security. And whoever can provide that security to the country will rule the country. So if it's not us, it will be the Taliban. And I think we should recognise that it would be, for that movement or for the Salafi-jihadi movement more broadly, perceived as a tremendous victory to have been able to withstand the American onslaught, so to speak, and to still stand in power at the end of that. And so the public perception of victory or defeat is just as critical as anything. MARK COLVIN: Christopher Heffelfinger of the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy West Point. Thieves in National Army uniform stopped
Written by http://www.quqnoos.com/ 4 thieves in National Army uniforms stopped during robbery, 1 caught, 3 escape Four thieves using the uniform and vehicles of Rangers of National Army to commit armed robbery were stopped by police last night (Monday). One was captured by police and 3 others escaped. The head of the police Criminal Branch of Parwan Province, Abdul Khalil Azizi, told Quqnoos.com that police performed this operation last night and the arrested person was injured in the incident. The captured accused has confessed to the police that their group was involved in stopping vehicles in Hijani Area of Salang District and extracting money from people by force. After that the thieves moved to the Tajikan area of Jabel-u-Saraj District they were engaged by police but 3 escaped and one of them was captured by police in Chrikar city in his vehicle. Aziz said police suffered no causalities in this incident. On the basis of information from the captured accused, the thieves stole the captured vehicle from the 209 Corps of National Army, from Darul-Aman area of Kabul city. He said, that this vehicle which belonged to Shaheen Corps, was taken to Darul-Aman to repair its communication system. Officials from National Defense and Shaheen Crops have yet to comment as they are awaiting a formal report.
FT.com - Comment & analysis Sir, The Taliban in Afghanistan offer many illiterate Afghans a sense of order and self-discipline that they can empathise with. The sense of order offered by the coalition forces - or by the Russians before that - simply does not resonate with them. Unless we wish to stay there for 100 years - until their education system produces some results - to remain any longer is wasteful. Clearly, we cannot allow Afghans to harbour renegade bands, but this can be dealt with without keeping troops on the ground indefinitely. Stephen J. Cheleda, Sherborne, Dorset, DT9 N6PU, UK Obama is saying the wrong things about Afghanistan He hit the right notes during his swing through Iraq, but his plans for that other war could mean trouble.
Salon Barack Obama's Afghanistan and Iraq policies are mirror images of each other. Obama wants to send 10,000 extra U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but wants to withdraw all American soldiers and Marines from Iraq on a short timetable. In contrast to the kid gloves with which he treated the Iraqi government, Obama repeated his threat to hit at al-Qaida in neighboring Pakistan unilaterally, drawing howls of outrage from Islamabad. But Obama's pledge to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan will not be easy to fulfill. While coalition troop deaths have declined significantly in Iraq, NATO casualties in Afghanistan are way up. By shifting emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan, would a President Obama be jumping from the frying pan into the fire? During the Baghdad stop of his ongoing overseas tour, the convergence between the worldview of the presumptive Democratic nominee and that of his Iraqi hosts provided some embarrassing moments for the Bush administration. Obama and his traveling companions, Senate colleagues Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., issued a statement Tuesday after a day of consultations with Iraqi politicians and U.S. military commanders, affirming the need to respect Iraqi aspirations for a "timeline, with a clear date, for the redeployment of American combat forces." By then, in an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had already expressed support for Obama's proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration next January. Although al-Maliki's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, attempted to soothe ruffled GOP feathers by suggesting the Der Spiegel interview was mistranslated, al-Dabbagh came clean while Obama was in Baghdad on Monday. He confirmed that the Iraqi government hoped U.S. troops would be withdrawn within two years. Obama was thus able, in his joint statement with Reed and Hagel, to cite Iraqi attitudes for his own stance: "The prime minister ... stated his hope that U.S. combat forces could be out of Iraq in 2010." In general, Obama's policies toward Iraq synchronize neatly with the aspirations of the Shiite-dominated elected Iraqi government, with an affirmation of the need to gain the consent of the Iraqis for any status-of-forces agreement with the U.S., and with a far greater emphasis on addressing the humanitarian crisis provoked by the U.S. invasion. On leaving al-Maliki's office, Obama was able to call his consultations with the prime minister "very constructive." By comparison, Obama's criticisms of Bush administration policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, and his determination to make those countries the centerpiece of his foreign policy, are more problematic. Obama's determination to put down the tribal insurgencies in northwestern Pakistan and in southern Afghanistan reveals basic contradictions in his announced policies. His plans certainly have the potential to ruffle Afghan and Pakistani feathers, and have already done so in Pakistan. On July 13, Obama criticized Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai on CNN, saying, "I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped organize Afghanistan and [the] government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence." Although the remark had the potential to make for awkward moments between Karzai and Obama during their meeting Sunday, it was welcomed by the independent Afghan press, which applauded the senator for bucking the "self-centered" policies of Bush and his knee-jerk support of Karzai. After Obama met with Karzai, reporters asked his aide, Humayun Hamidzada, if the criticism had come up. He tried to put the best face on issue, saying the Afghan government did not see the comment as critical, but as a fair observation, since it had in fact been tied down fighting terrorism. Less forgiving were the politicians in Pakistan, who reacted angrily to Obama's comments on unilaterally attacking targets inside that country. The Democratic presidential hopeful told CBS on Sunday, "What I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaida targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should." He added that he would put pressure on Islamabad to move aggressively against terrorist training camps in the country's northwestern tribal areas. Pakistan, a country of 165 million people, is composed of six major ethnic groups, one of them the Pashtuns of the northwest. The Pakistani Taliban are largely drawn from this group. The more settled Pashtun population is centered in the North-West Frontier province, with its capital at Peshawar. Between the NWFP and Afghanistan are badlands administered rather as Native American reservations are in the U.S., called the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, with a population of some 3 million. These areas abut Pashtun provinces of Afghanistan, also a multiethnic society, but one in which Pashtuns are a plurality. The tribal Pashtuns of the FATA no man's land, a third of which is classified as "inaccessible" by the Pakistani government, have sometimes given shelter to al-Qaida or Afghan Taliban militants. Some of the Pashtun tribesmen themselves have turned militant, and have been responsible for suicide bombings at police checkpoints inside Pakistan. They are also accused of attacking targets across the border in Afghanistan and of giving refuge to Afghan Taliban who conduct cross-border raids. The governor of the North-West Frontier province, Owais Ghani, immediately spoke out against Obama, saying that the senator's remarks had the effect of undermining the new civilian government elected last February. Ghani warned that a U.S. incursion into the northwestern tribal areas would have "disastrous" consequences for the globe. The governor underlined that a "war on terrorism" policy depended on popular support for it, and that such support was being leeched away by U.S. strikes on the Pakistan side of the border and by statements such as Obama's. A recent American attack mistakenly killed Pakistani troops who had been sent to fight the Pakistani Taliban at American insistence. The Pakistani public was furious. Ghani complained, "Candidate Obama gave these statements; I come out openly and say such statements undermine support, don't do it." The NWFP governor is responsible for Pakistani counterinsurgency efforts in his province and in the neighboring tribal regions. He is well thought of in Pakistan because of his successes in Baluchistan province, which he governed for five years prior to January of this year, where he combined political negotiations with militants and targeted military action when he felt it necessary. He firmly subordinated the military strategy to civilian politics and negotiations. That is, Ghani is a politician with long experience in dealing with tribal insurgencies. Obama's aggressive stance, on the other hand, could be counterproductive. The Illinois senator had praised the Pakistani elections of last February, issuing a statement the next day saying, "Yesterday, a moderate majority of the Pakistani people made their voices heard, and chose a new direction." He criticized the Bush administration, saying U.S. interests would be better served by "advancing the interests of the Pakistani people, not just Pakistan's president." Yet the parties elected in February in Pakistan are precisely the ones demanding negotiations with the tribes and militants of the northwest, rather than frontal military assaults. Indeed, it is the Bush administration that has pushed for military strikes in the FATA areas. Obama will have to decide whether he wants to risk undermining the elected government and perhaps increasing the power of the military by continuing to insist loudly and publicly on unilateral U.S. attacks on Pakistani territory. Nor is it at all clear that sending more U.S. troops to southern Afghanistan can resolve the problem of the resurgence of the Taliban there. American and NATO search-and-destroy missions alienate the local population and fuel, rather than quench, the insurgency. Resentment over U.S. airstrikes on innocent civilians and wedding parties is growing. Brazen attacks on U.S. forward bases and on institutions such as the prison in the southern city of Kandahar are becoming more frequent. To be sure, Obama advocates combining counterinsurgency military operations with development aid and attention to resolving the problem of poppy cultivation. (Afghan poppies are turned into heroin for the European market, and the profits have fueled some of the Taliban's resurgence.) Stepped-up military action, however, is still the central component of his plan. Before he jumps into Afghanistan with both feet, Obama would be well advised to consult with another group of officers. They are the veterans of the Russian campaign in Afghanistan. Russian officers caution that Afghans cannot be conquered, as the Soviets attempted to do in the 1980s with nearly twice as many troops as NATO and the U.S. now have in the country, and with three times the number of Afghan troops as Karzai can deploy. Afghanistan never fell to the British or Russian empires at the height of the age of colonialism. Conquering the tribal forces of a vast, rugged, thinly populated country proved beyond their powers. It may also well prove beyond the powers even of the energetic and charismatic Obama. In Iraq, he is listening to what the Iraqis want. In Pakistan, he is simply dictating policy in a somewhat bellicose fashion, and ignoring the wishes of those moderate parties whose election he lauded last February.
http://www.quqnoos.com/ Suspected Taliban militants have shot dead 6 security guards guarding supply trucks in Zabul province QALAT (PAN): Suspected Taliban militants on Monday shot dead six security guards of trucks supplying logistics to the foreign troops in southern Zabul province. Shadi Khan, Chief of Shahr-e-Safa district of the province, told Pajhwok Afghan News that the logistic trucks were passing by Haji Grani area of the district before noon when they were assaulted by the militants. The attack have left two vehicles burned in addition to killing six security guards, he added. Col Ghulam Jaillani Farahi, security chief of Zabul police headquarters, told Pajhwok Afghan News they had arrived in the area and were engaged in heavy fighting with the Taliban. He claimed inflicted heavy casualties on the Taliban side. Civilian Risks Curbing Strikes in Afghan War
The New York Times - Home Dawn was breaking over Afghanistan one day this month as Air Force surveillance planes locked in on a top-ranking insurgent commander as he traveled in secret around Kandahar, the spiritual home of the Taliban. But as attack aircraft were summoned overhead to strike, according to a recounting of the mission by Air Force commanders, the Taliban leader entered a building. Intelligence specialists scrambled to determine whether civilians were inside. Weapons experts calculated what bomb could destroy the structure with the least damage. It had taken the American military many days to identify, track and target the senior Taliban officer. But the risk of civilian deaths was deemed too high. Air Force commanders, working with military lawyers, aborted the mission. The Taliban leader escaped. "We miss the opportunity, but the beauty of what we do is we will get them eventually," said Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, commander of American and allied air forces in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. "We will continue to track them. Eventually, we will get to the point where we can achieve - within the constraints of which we operate, which by the way the enemy does not operate under - and we will get them." In interviews at the air operations headquarters in Southwest Asia, American and allied commanders said that even as orders for air attacks in Afghanistan had increased significantly this year, their ability to strike top insurgent leaders from the air was severely restricted by rules intended to minimize civilian casualties. The rules that govern dropping bombs and firing missiles are far more restrictive now in Afghanistan than in Iraq, senior Pentagon and military officials say. The rules of engagement were reviewed and tightened in 2007 after a spate of civilian casualties, under Gen. Dan K. McNeill, then the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, and reviewed and revised again in April, officials said. American commanders acknowledge that civilian casualties undermine support for the NATO-led stability mission exactly at a time when the Taliban is experiencing a potent resurgence across the country. They say Afghan officials, including President Hamid Karzai, routinely complain about civilian deaths in meetings with Americans. Military officers also acknowledge that their control over airstrikes is reduced when crews scramble to help NATO contingents under attack. But air commanders say they have a commitment to support ground forces in trouble. Only last weekend, nine Afghan police officers were killed in western Afghanistan when Afghan and United States forces called in airstrikes on the officers, thinking they were militants. According to the United Nations, 698 civilians were killed in the first six months of this year, compared with 430 in the same period last year. The United Nations report said nearly two-thirds of the deaths this year resulted from actions by the Taliban and other insurgents. The remainder were attributed to actions by Afghan government, American or allied forces. In interviews at the air base, American and allied commanders expressed frustration about the obstacles they faced. They described what they said were missed opportunities and told how Taliban leaders, who live and operate among the population, have learned to exploit the restrictions. "There are frustrations, without a doubt," said a British officer, Air Commodore Simon Dobb, director of the combined air operations center. "But we understand what Clausewitz said, that war is an extension of policy. We are acutely aware of the sensitivities toward collateral damage," the military term for civilians killed or wounded. A reporter for The New York Times was given access to the Combined Air and Space Operations Center under a written agreement that neither the name of the base nor its location be published, in deference to the host nation's concerns. Over recent weeks, a wave of deadly Taliban attacks illustrated just how thinly American and NATO troops were stretched across Afghanistan, prompting Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to pledge to find additional forces for the mission. In the meantime, orders for airstrikes in Afghanistan have increased in recent months, as American and allied warplanes attack Taliban hide-outs and swoop in to assist allied and Afghan forces under fire. According to statistics compiled by the air operations center, during the first six months of this year, 1,853 munitions were dropped by air over Afghanistan - more than twice the 754 dropped in Iraq during the same period. In June alone, 646 bombs and missiles were used in Afghanistan, the second highest monthly total since the end of major combat operations in 2002. Air Force lawyers vet all the airstrikes approved by the operational air commanders. Senior Pentagon officials said the more stringent rules of engagement now in effect for Afghanistan specified the acceptable levels of risk to civilians for a priority attack. They said these more stringent rules required a significantly lower risk of civilian casualties than was acceptable in Iraq. Missions in Afghanistan that are judged vital but highly risky to civilians may now require approval by the overall regional commander and, in some instances, even by the defense secretary himself, according to Pentagon and military officials. "In their deliberate targeting, the Air Force has all but eliminated civilian casualties in Afghanistan," said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst with Human Rights Watch. "They have very effective collateral damage mitigation procedures." The greater risk of civilian casualties, Mr. Garlasco said, comes in unplanned targeting, when American and allied troops come under attack unexpectedly and call for airstrikes for urgent help. "When this immediate targeting needs to be done, an aircraft may not have the correct weapon for that target," Mr. Garlasco said. "The aircraft may be rerouted to assist troops in a hard fight, and there is not time to do the collateral damage modeling they would want to do. In an attempt to help troops on the ground caught up in the fight, there have been situations where they have killed civilians." At the air operations center, targeting specialists spend hours before each mission measuring distances from the potential strike zone to the nearest house, building, mosque, school or hospital. Vast numbers of public, religious and historic sites make up a computer database of no-strike zones. Special goggles are worn while reviewing digital images compiled from surveillance aircraft and satellites to give a detailed, three-dimensional view of the target area. The bombs themselves are chosen carefully and sometimes modified. Some designed for air burst are instead programmed with a delayed fuse to bury themselves before exploding, thus reducing the blast range. One sort of bomb has even been loaded with less explosive, filled instead with concrete, to cause great damage where it hits but no farther. "We explicitly guarantee extra benefits to civilians," said Col. Gary Brown, the top military lawyer at the air operations center. Lawyers like Colonel Brown check that proposed operations conform to a complex body of military law, including the Geneva Conventions, acts of Congress and court decisions. Although Air Force officials acknowledge that unintended civilian casualties have been inflicted, Colonel Brown also said the Taliban and Al Qaeda regularly fabricate reports of civilian deaths. He and other officers at the operations center say every mission has two dimensions: the fight itself and the information fight after that fight. "The Taliban have a very efficient and very effective political machine," Colonel Brown said. Though target planners were frustrated by the inability to carry out the mission against the Taliban leader who took refuge in the building, another mission just days before, overnight on July 8, was carried out with the goal of eliminating another Taliban commander on the list of "high-value targets" - even though a last-minute change was ordered to prevent the loss of civilian life. An array of surveillance vehicles, some remotely piloted, had tracked the Taliban leader around the clock for days, establishing what intelligence circles call "a pattern of life." When the Taliban leader and his followers camped for the night on the northwest outskirts of Kandahar, a team of targeting and weapons specialists at the combined air operations center went to work, scanning aerial photographs to gauge the distance to nearby structures and analyzing the blast radius of bombs and missiles aboard aircraft overhead. It turned out that houses and other buildings were inside the blast range of those munitions, so the Air Force deployed an A-10 Thunderbolt. Its armor-piercing shells were designed for destroying Soviet tanks - but the aircraft can also strike with great accuracy without a large blast area. The A-10 strafed the sleeping Taliban camp with cannon fire. According to later reports, buildings nearby went undamaged. British defence ministry says senior Taleban leader slain in Afghanistan
Straits Times, Singapore BRITAIN'S Ministry of Defence said on Tuesday that a Taleban leader had surrendered to Pakistani authorities and another leading insurgent had been killed by British forces. British forces spokesman Lt Col Robin Matthews said Mullah Rahim, the most senior Taleban leader in Helmand province, surrendered to Pakistani authorities on Saturday. Lt Col Matthews said that British forces killed Abdul Rasaq - a Taleban leader who led fighters in the Musa Qala area of Helmand. He said Rasaq, also known as Mullah Rahim, was killed by a precision missile strike just after midnight on Sunday. Rasaq is the third senior Taleban leader killed by British forces in recent weeks. 'The Taliban's senior leadership structure has suffered a shattering blow. They remain a dangerous enemy, but they increasingly lack strategic direction and their proposition to the Afghan people is proving ultimately negative and self-defeating,' Lt Col Matthews said. The Ministry of Defence said Bishmullah - a key strategist for the Taleban - was killed on July 12. Another senior strategist and bomb-maker - Sadiqullah - was killed in an Apache missile strike in late June. 'I advise all those Taleban who are engaging with terrorist actions that the fighting has no benefits,' the Helmand governor, Mangal, said in a speech the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah, according to the British statement. Pakistan did not confirm the British statement. -- AP Kabul gears up for ‘cleanliness day'
http://www.quqnoos.com/ NGO starts campaign for ‘cleanliness day' on 25 July to clean up fast growing city Officials of a local non-governmental organization on Monday urged the citizens of Kabul to join them on ‘cleanliness day' on July 25th. Aimed to clean Kabul city, the scheme will be conducted by close collaboration of local citizens, governmental and none governmental workers and the private sector. The commission which serves Kabul city residents, a non-governmental and non-political commission which was formed by Kabul citizens, began its operation a month back. Engineer Habiburahman Habib, the head of the commission, while addressing a news conference here on Monday said they had attracted supports from local elders and officials in all city districts of this capital as well as private sector representative and governmental institutions. The scheme works by Kabul residents collecting rubbish and filth from their houses and streets and placing these inside plastic bags to be provided to them before hand. These bags would then be placed in designated spots in the streets of Kabul for collection. The bags would be collected by Kabul municipality utilizing some 500 transport vehicles that would be provided by governmental and none governmental institutions according to Engineer Habib. People would also be given hand gloves, masks, spades, wheelbarrows and other required materials, he added, hoping the scheme would be a successful one. Mr Jarullah, head of the National Environmental Protection Agency, views this project as a positive one. With a population close to 5 million, Kabul city produces some 1500 tonnes of rubbish every day. Jarullah worries that Kabul municipality can only cope with disposing of 400 tonnes every day. Obama sees security progress in Iraq; says Afghanistan is now central anti-terrorism front
International Herald Tribune - Americas Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama declined to rate the Bush administration's troop surge in Iraq a success despite a reduction in violence, and expressed understanding of Gen. David Petraeus' opposition to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. "Not surprisingly he wants to retain as much flexibility as possible," Obama said of the U.S. military commander in Iraq, with whom he met in recent days while touring the war zone. "I think he wants maximum flexibility to be able to - to do what he believes needs to be done inside of Iraq. "But keep in mind, for example, one of Gen. Petraeus' responsibilities is not to think about how could we be using some of that $10 billion a month to shore up a U.S. economy that is really hurting right now," Obama said. "If I'm president of the United States, that is part of my responsibility." Obama commented at a news conference after arriving in Jordan, his first stop on an election-season trip to the Mideast and Europe paid for by campaign funds. His remarks about Iraq drew criticism from Tucker Bounds, spokesman for Republican candidate John McCain. "By admitting that his plan for withdrawal places him at odds with Gen. David Petraeus, Barack Obama has made clear that his goal remains unconditional withdrawal rather than securing the victory our troops have earned," the aide said. The Illinois senator opposed the war from the start and has long called for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops along a 16-month timetable. He favors leaving a force of undetermined size behind to help counter terrorists, protect U.S. personnel and facilities and train Iraqis. He also opposed Bush's decision to add 30,000 troops more than a year ago, saying it would not succeed, although a gradual reduction in violence and U.S. casualties has called that prediction into question. Asked for his current assessment, he said, "I believe that the situation in Iraq is more secure than it was a year and a half ago." Yet he added, "I think that the definition of success depends on how you look at it. "Originally, the administration suggested that the key measure was whether it gave breathing room for political reconciliation. So far, I think we have not seen the kind of political reconciliation that's going to bring about long-term stability in Iraq," he said. Obama toured two war zones with Sens. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, and Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, both of whom joined him at a news conference at the Amman Citadel, an ancient hilltop ruin that bears evidence of settlements dating to 2000 B.C. The skyline of modern-day Amman, cement dwellings and the occasional mosque, formed a made-for-television backdrop. The three lawmakers issued a written statement last week saying that Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the border region with Pakistan, is the central front in the war against terrorism. Obama repeated the sentiment at the news conference, adding, "The situation in Afghanistan is perilous and urgent," he said. "We must act now to reverse a deteriorating situation." Obama commented as Prime Minister Gordon Brown said in London that Britain will begin a major troop withdrawal from Iraq in early 2009, if security continues to improve and work to train local security forces is completed. Britain currently has around 4,100 troops in Iraq, based mainly on the outskirts of the southern city of Basra. Brown told lawmakers Britain will keep current numbers in place for several months, but Britain's role in Iraq will change next year from combat and military training to boosting the economy of the oil-rich southern region. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also has spoken favorably of the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces along a timetable similar to Obama's. Before leaving Iraq, Obama traveled to a former hotbed of the Sunni insurgency for talks Tuesday with tribal leaders who joined the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq and now seek a deeper role in Iraq's political future. Obama met leaders of the so-called Awakening Council movement in Ramadi, one of the main cities of western Anbar Province where al-Qaida once had the upper hand against embattled U.S. and Iraqi troops. Tribal sheiks last year began an uprising against insurgents that is credited with uprooting extremist strongholds and helping bring violence around Iraq to its lowest levels in four years. ___ Associated Press writers Robert H. Reid in Jordan and Brian Murphy in Iraq contributed to this report. Pakistani Network Broadcasts Rare Interview of Al-Qaida Commander in Afghanistan
Voice of America A Pakistani television network has broadcast a rare interview with the top al-Qaida commander in Afghanistan. From Islamabad, Barry Newhouse reports Geo News says its interview with Mustafa Abu Yazid, an Egyptian, took place a few days ago in Afghanistan's eastern Khost Province. Abu Mustafa al-Yazid is believed to be al-Qaida's third highest ranking leader, behind Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden. The official U.S. government investigation of the September 11 terrorist attacks named Yazid as the terrorist group's chief financial manager at the time of the attacks. Last year, he was named head of al-Qaida's operations in Afghanistan and since then has claimed credit for a wave of deadly attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In an exclusive interview with a Geo reporter that was broadcast late Monday, al-Yazid said the group gets support from tribal areas of Pakistan. His remarks in Arabic were dubbed into Urdu in the broadcast. He gave thanks that the group is receiving assistance from the tribal areas. He then urged all Pakistanis to support the effort as part of their religious duty. Afghan officials and U.S. commanders have long argued that Pakistan's tribal areas along the Afghan border are a haven for al-Qaida and Taliban militants as well as a support base for the insurgency in Afghanistan. Afghan officials have also accused parts of Pakistan's army and intelligence agencies of secretly supporting the insurgency in Afghanistan. Al-Yazid says no country supports the group and in fact the Pakistani government has caused more damage to al-Qaida than any other. He said the government of Pervez Musharraf betrayed the Islamist fighters in Afghanistan when it sided with the United States. Al-Yazid also repeated claims that al-Qaida was behind the June bombing of the Danish Embassy in Islamabad. He claimed the bomber was from Mecca and originally wanted to fight in Afghanistan or Kashmir, but later decided to attack the Danish Embassy to retaliate for Danish cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammed. Governor's spokesman shot dead in Pakita
Written by http://www.quqnoos.com/ & PAN Unidentified gunmen have shot dead Yar Ghamai Khan, spokesperson of Paktia governor in his home on Monday GARDIZ (PAN): Unidentified gunmen believed to be Taliban militants shot dead Muhammad Yar Ghamai Khan spokesman of the southeastern Paktia governor in his house on Monday night, officials said Tuesday. Paktia governor, Dr Ikram Khpalwak, told Pajhwok Afghan News that besides abducting Khan's brother, the militants wounded a number of female and children in the house of the late gubernatorial when breaking into spokesman house in Gardez capital of the province. Din Muhammad Darwish, the Information and Culture department director of the province, said Khan was living in Wazo village about 16 kilometers south of the Gardez city. The relatives of Khan confronted the assailants for two hours, he added. The wife, sister in law and nephew of Khan had been seriously wounded in the assault, he advised. Security forces in the area had been investigating the incident. Dr Muhammad Nadir Noori, head of the public health department director, told Pajhwok Afghan News four wounded including two children and two women were brought to the hospital. Condition of the injured was unstable, he advised. Zabihullah Mujahid spokesman of the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack saying they killed Ghamai Khan for resisting their fighters and had "arrested" his brother. Top Taliban Leader Surrenders to Pakistan
Fox News Channel Britain's Ministry of Defense said Tuesday that a Taliban leader had surrendered to Pakistani authorities and another leading insurgent had been killed by British forces. British forces spokesman Lt. Col. Robin Matthews said Mullah Rahim, the most senior Taliban leader in Helmand province, surrendered to Pakistani authorities on Saturday. Matthews said that British forces killed Abdul Rasaq - a Taliban leader who led fighters in the Musa Qala area of Helmand. He said Rasaq, also known as Mullah Rahim, was killed by a precision missile strike just after midnight on Sunday. Rasaq is the third senior Taliban leader killed by British forces in recent weeks. "The Taliban's senior leadership structure has suffered a shattering blow. They remain a dangerous enemy, but they increasingly lack strategic direction and their proposition to the Afghan people is proving ultimately negative and self-defeating," Matthews said. The Ministry of Defense said Bishmullah - a key strategist for the Taliban - was killed on July 12. Another senior strategist and bomb-maker - Sadiqullah - was killed in an Apache missile strike in late June. "I advise all those Taliban who are engaging with terrorist actions that the fighting has no benefits," the Helmand governor, Mangal, said in a speech the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah, according to the British statement. Pakistan did not confirm the British statement. Success of Obama's tour depends on keeping the right platitudes
The Canberra Times, Australia Barack Obama wants three things out of his tour of the Middle East and Europe. He wants people everywhere to think that he has the answers for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He wants Jewish-Americans to believe that he is Israel's unquestioning supporter. And he wants Americans to notice that Europeans would vote for him by a five-to-one majority, if they could vote in United States elections. Americans will certainly notice that. However, it will not do him much good among the key group of US voters whose support would make an Obama victory next November a dead certainty: the white poor in decaying rust-belt towns who ''cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them as a way to explain their frustrations'', as he famously put it last northern spring. Those people are not impressed by the views of foreigners, and they don't automatically vote Democratic any more. Neither do Jewish-Americans, and the Zionist majority among them are deeply suspicious about Obama's commitment to Israel. This is true even though he now toes the line, saying that Israel is just the innocent victim of ''the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam''. All the history has vanished down the memory hole, and he no longer refers to the underlying issues of conquest and settlement. Last year's formula that ''nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people'' has been modified into a more satisfactory ''nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel'', and Obama now declares that Jerusalem ''must remain undivided''. That's enough to win him the neutrality of major Zionist organisations, although they know that he really thinks the situation is more complicated than that. So long as he gets through the Middle Eastern leg of his trip without anybody from Hamas giving him flowers, he'll be all right on that front. The one foreign-policy question that Obama cannot avoid is what to do about the Bush wars. His short-term solution is to couple his long-standing opposition to the ''wrong war'', Iraq, with a newfound enthusiasm for the ''right war'', Afghanistan. Obama's proposal to send an extra 10,000 US troops to fight in Afghanistan will not change the situation there. Even 100,000 US troops wouldn't change it. He may even know that, but this is his only way of dealing with the politically inconvenient fact that George W. Bush's troop ''surge'' in Iraq has brought about a visible improvement in the Iraq security situation. The improvement may not last the Sunni militias, and indeed Moqtada al-Sadr's big Shi'ite militia, too, may only be biding their time until the Americans leave but the perception that will dominate the few remaining months until the election is that Iraq is on the way to being a US success story. Obama, quite rightly, opposed the invasion from the start, and is committed to pulling out US combat troops within 16 months of taking office. So how does he fight off the accusation that he risks throwing a victory away? By arguing that ending the war in Iraq is ''essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and al-Qaeda has a safe haven''. He is quite right to want to bail out of Iraq as soon as possible, but he needs the war in Afghanistan to explain it to US voters, who have been persuaded by years of propaganda that the best way to deal with terrorist threats is to invade places. ''I continue to believe that we're under-resourced in Afghanistan,'' Obama said recently. ''That is the real centre for terrorist activity that we have to deal with and deal with aggressively.'' That's nonsense, although it is intoned by media pundits and so-called military analysts in the US repeatedly. No Afghan has ever carried out a terrorist attack in a Western country, and it's not likely to happen in the future, either. Nor can the Afghan insurgency be suppressed by pouring more foreign troops into the country: the Russians had twice as many soldiers in Afghanistan in the 1980s as the West has now, and they still lost. Not only was invading Iraq in 2003 a ghastly mistake, invading Afghanistan in 2001, although a political necessity in the US after 9/11, was also a strategic error. In terms of neutralising Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, more would have been achieved, at a far lower cost, by placing the country under a strict blockade and quarantine. In the end, Western troops will have to leave Afghanistan again, and if that means that the Taliban regain control (which is not very likely), then quarantine may yet have to be the long-term solution. Does Obama realise this? Maybe not, for it is not yet accepted by any large group of American ''foreign policy experts'', including his own advisers. But the line about needing to pull out of Iraq to have a better chance of ''winning'' in Afghanistan sounds plausible enough to get him through the next few months. So his trip will be a success so long as he sticks with the platitudes while he's in the Middle East, and avoids too much adulation while he's in Europe. Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist. 4 foreign fighters captured in Ghazni
Written by http://www.quqnoos.com/ Afghan and coalition forces report capturing 2 Pakistani and 2 Arab militants in an joint operation Afghan and coalition forces have stated that during a joint operation in Dih Yak district in Ghazni province, 4 foreign militants have been arrested. The Chief district of Dih Yak district stated that these people were arrested on Tuesday in Tapor area of this district. Those arrested included 2 Pakistani and 2 Arab men. In related news, officials earlier reported that Taliban militants have captured Ajristan district in western Ghazi, bordering Uruzgan province. Recently The governor of the southern province of Ghazni has said Taliban fighters from the south and south-east are trying to use the province as the frontline in their bid to capture Kabul. Dr Osman Osmani, the province's third governor this year, said an increase in militant activity in his region was a sign that Taliban commanders wanted to make the province a gateway for their fighters to move into Kabul via. Osmani said he had received reports that militants from the south and south-east had gathered in Ghazni to step up the insurgency. Ghazni shares its border with seven other provinces, which are among some of the most dangerous in the country. It is also the province where a number of Korean NGO staff were taken and held hostage resulting in the later withdrawal of all Korean troops in Afghanistan. The Taliban have increased their attacks in Ghazni and have expanded their operations to the outskirts of the city, Osmani said. The news comes days after the Taliban executed two women accused of allegedly running a prostitution racket for NATO soldiers in Ghazni. This month militants said the women were killed for aiding police, but a video tape released on Monday shows fighters claiming the two were executed for providing prostitutes to soldiers working for NATO's Provincial Reconstruction Team. Security around Ghazni city has been tightened: a 100-strong special security force made up of Afghan soldiers and policemen is on stand-by if militants threaten to attack the city, the governor said. Osmani said he was reforming local administration by ridding it of corruption in an attempt to reduce public dissatisfaction with the government. "Three district chiefs have been replaced during my job here in the past three weeks," said Osmani. Obama: Afghanistan key to war against terror
Irish Sun - World Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that security in Iraq has improved and that the country's needs must now begin to be addressed politically and diplomatically. "There is security progress, but now we need a political solution," Mr. Obama said in the first news conference of his highly publicized trip abroad. He reiterated his goal of withdrawing combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of becoming president. But he said he would consult with military commanders to determine how many troops to keep in the country to protect diplomatic and humanitarian operations, to train Iraqis and to conduct counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq. "My goal is to no longer have U.S. troops engaged in combat operations in Iraq," he said. Mr. Obama and his two travelling Senate companions, Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, emphasized the need to turn U.S. attention to Afghanistan and to help Pakistan confront a growing terrorist presence within its borders. "The situation in Afghanistan is perilous and urgent," he said. "We must act now to reverse that deteriorating situation." Afghanistan is now the "central front in the war against terrorism," he added. Mr. Obama arrived in Jordan after a tour of war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq. He stepped off his military aircraft carrying body armour, orange earplugs sticking out of his ears. His joint news conference with Mr. Reed and Mr. Hagel was at the Amman Citadel, an ancient hilltop ruin that bears evidence of settlements dating to 2000 B.C. The skyline of modern-day Amman, cement dwellings and the occasional mosque, formed a made-for-television backdrop. Visits To Iraq and Afghanistan Deliver Strong Boost to Obama's Image Iraq's prime minister effectively endorses Obama's plan, unsettling the McCain campaign
U.S. News & World Report, DC Barack Obama's unfolding foreign trip has been a public relations bonanza for him so far. He has demonstrated steadiness and composure, and, most surprising, gotten the better of GOP candidate John McCain and the Republicans back home, at least temporarily, on the sensitive issue of what to do next in Iraq. The biggest news of Obama's journey has been the endorsement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of a timeframe for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq that closely resembles what Obama has been proposing. Their terminology is different, but what it amounts to is this: Both Obama and Maliki support withdrawal of U.S. combat forces according to similar schedules-by the end of 2010, in Maliki's formulation, or within 16 months of Obama taking office, in the Democratic candidate's formulation. In other words, they are talking about essentially the same timeframe, give or take a few months. After Obama met with Maliki in Baghdad Monday, all of this was reconfirmed by an Iraqi government spokesman. Such agreement enhances Obama's credibility as a serious potential commander in chief, and this has unsettled McCain and President Bush. At the White House, the consternation is palpable. "We don't think that talking about specific negotiating tactics or your negotiating position in the press is the best way to negotiate a deal," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "However, we understand that they're a sovereign country and they'll be able to do that. We're just not going to do it on our end." For many months, both Bush and McCain have opposed a withdrawal timetable of any kind, but last Friday, as Obama's trip was beginning, White House officials said the president was willing to accept a "time horizon" for drawdowns, which sounds very similar to a timetable, although the language is more fuzzy. All this could isolate McCain, who still opposes a timetable. Obama still has substantial vulnerabilities on Iraq as a campaign issue. From the start, he has strongly opposed President Bush's "surge" of U.S. troops into the war zone. But now, it seems clear that the surge has helped to quell much of the violence in Iraq over the past several months-results that Obama said would never materialize. McCain told reporters Monday that if Obama's view had prevailed and the surge had never been launched, Iraq would be near chaos, withdrawals would be impossible, and there would be "greater problems in Afghanistan." (McCain, however, didn't help himself when, during a television interview this week, he made reference to problems along "the Iraq/Pakistan border." Those two countries do not share a border, and it appeared McCain had meant to refer to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.) Obama had another objective on his trip-to get attention for his view that the Iraq war is diverting needed troops and money from the more important conflict in Afghanistan, where allied forces have been suffering setbacks in recent months. He has made that case, but the Maliki embrace has crowded it out of the news coverage. So far, however, Obama has avoided any gaffe that would damage perceptions that he could be an effective commander in chief. His most effective bit of stagecraft has been to surround himself at every opportunity with delighted soldiers in uniform, a gambit designed to reassure voters that he is popular with the troops-and his news coverage has been very positive. Obama's eight-country tour is at its midpoint. He has visited Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq so far, and is scheduled to make other stops in Jordan, Israel, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. 6 mine workers killed by armed men in Badakhshan
Written by http://www.quqnoos.com/ Unidentified armed men have attacked and killed 6 mine workers in Badakhshan on Monday Armed men attacked and killed 6 mine workers in a ruby mine in Ishkashim district of Badakhshan on Monday night. A further 2 mine workers were wounded in the attack. Chief of the district of Ishkashim, Said Omran has stated that the reasons for the attack are unknown at this stage but investigations are continuing. However he added that working in these ruby mines is illegal and much of the produce of these mines are smuggled abroad without any revenues going to the government. Pakistan: Taliban threatens fresh attacks
Business Standard, India A Taliban spokesman has warned that if the local government in the North West Frontier Province does not stop the military operation in Hangu, Swat and other areas, the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan will launch severe attacks. The threat was issued at the end of a five-day ultimatum issued by TTP chief Baitullah Mehsud to the provincial government to resign. Maulvi Umar told newsmen on phone from an unspecified place that the NWFP government was responsible for the military operation in the areas under its control. He regretted the response of the provincial government to the TTP's deadline. Due to sensitivity of the situation, the government should have shown flexibility and given a positive response to the Taliban's ultimatum, he said. The spokesman said the TTP leadership wanted peace and resolution of disputes through dialogue. He ruled out talks with the government until military actions in Hangu and Swat were halted. Taliban, he said, had prepared a plan which would be implemented after a decision by the Shura. The Awami National Party-led provincial government had rejected Baitullah Mahsud's ultimatum. "The people have elected us for five years and we would neither step down nor follow dictates of any person or group", said NWFP Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain.
AKI - Home (English) President George Bush recently told a group of American journalists that the greatest challenge that his successor would face is not from the situation in Iraq, or the growing violence in Afghanistan, but from the growing challenges of Islamic radicalism in Pakistan. The United States is now realising that the country which it recently accorded the status of a "Major NON-NATO Ally" in its "War on Terror" has, in fact, provided haven and support to elements it was seeking to destroy in Afghanistan. It is in the wake of these turbulent developments that Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid has emerged as unquestionably the best-informed and most courageous writer on developments in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republics and in describing the factors that led to the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Well before the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and at a time when the Clinton Administration was describing the Taliban as a "factor for stability," in the hope that the Taliban would assist American oil majors like UNOCAL to exploit the gas resources of Turkmenistan for conveying to ports in Pakistan, Rashid had warned of the dangers that the Taliban and its ISI mentors would pose to regional peace and security and to the security and stability of Pakistan itself. What Rashid lucidly exposes in his latest book is that even as the United States sought to use Pakistan for its strategic interests, Pakistan's military rulers had their own ideas on how they would use American assistance to promote their own interests, by making Afghanistan a client state and using the "strategic depth" thus obtained to wage "Jihad" against India. In military parlance this was Pakistan's strategy to secure "strategic depth in relation to India". It was the pursuit of this objective that led to Pakistani support for the emergence of the Taliban, though the dubious distinction of setting up the Taliban should go to Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, her Interior (Home) Minister Major General Nasrullah Babbar and her coalition ally Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the head of the Deobandi Jamiat ulema e Pakistan. Rashid doesn't spare the Bush Administration, asserting it had no coherent strategy to deal with the entire exercise of "Nation building" after the Taliban fled the country in the wake of attacks by the forces of the Northern Alliance," with assistance from the CIA and American air power. He aptly notes that it was the reluctance of the American commander General Tommy Franks to put his soldiers in harm's way by blocking the exit routes of the Taliban leadership and its fighters into Pakistan which allowed the Taliban leadership, led by its one-eyed Amir, Mullah Omar, to stream into Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's Baluchistan Province, while its military component led by commanders like Jalaluddin Haqqani and their Al Qaeda allies sneaked into the tribal areas of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP). Running with the Taliban hare while hunting with the American hound has had its inevitable consequences for Pakistan. The entire Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan is today under virtual Taliban control. In his conclusion Rashid notes: "Today, seven years after 9/11 Mullah Omar and the original Afghan Shura still live in Baluchistan Province. Afghans and Pakistani Taliban leaders live further north in FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas), as do the militias of Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hikmetyar. Al Qaeda has safe havens in FATA, and along with them reside a plethora of Asian and Arab terrorist groups". The recent attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul has to be seen in the context of Pakistan's continuing support for the Taliban and radical Islamic groups in its neighbourhood - a policy which its military establishment continues to follow despite the huge domestic costs and foreign policy damage this policy has caused. One hopes that all this causes policymakers in New Delhi to get realistic and stop deluding themselves and the country at large by making out that Pakistan's hard-boiled military establishment will end terrorism merely by resorting to ill-advised steps like setting up a so-called "Joint Terror Mechanism". The author was India's High Commissioner to Pakistan Taliban arrest raises Western hopes
TVNZ Pakistan's security forces made a rare arrest of a senior Afghan Taliban commander near the south-western city of Quetta, Pakistani security officials and coalition forces in Afghanistan said. A statement issued by British forces in Afghanistan late on Tuesday said Mullah Rahim, operational commander of Taliban forces in Helmand, had surrendered to authorities in Pakistan. Western officials in the past have suspected the Pakistani security services of turning a blind eye to the presence of Taliban leaders in Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan. Recent unpublicised arrests in Quetta, however, raised hopes of a sea-change in Pakistan, a senior Western official said. "We've seen signs of change yes, and arrests," said an official in Islamabad earlier this week. Pakistan had still to confirm Rahim's capture, but Pakistani security officials, who had requested anonymity, had said on Monday that a suspect believed to have been the Taliban commander in Helmand, had been caught over the weekend. They said the man had been caught during a raid on a house in Kharotabad area of Quetta. "We conducted a raid three days ago based on very credible information that some important Taliban figures were hiding with an Afghan family there," a senior intelligence official said. Western allies suffering mounting casualties among troops in Afghanistan have put Pakistan under pressure to act against Taliban taking sanctuary on its territory. The intensity of the pressure and more frequent US drone aircraft missile attacks on militant targets in Pakistani tribal areas have led to frenzied speculation in Pakistani media that Western forces in Afghanistan could soon take unilateral action. Deployment of more NATO troops near the Pakistan border has prompted fears they could be ordered across on hot pursuit or covert missions to eliminate high value targets. Pakistan opposes any such action that would violate its sovereignty and risk escalating the conflict in ethnic Pashtun lands straddling the frontier. Patchy record The British statement said that hours after Rahim's arrest in Pakistan British forces killed another senior Taliban leader, the third in as many weeks. Abdul Razaq, alias Mullah Sheikh, was killed along with three fighters in a missile strike after midnight on Sunday at Musa Qala, a town in Helmand that has changed hands several times. Similar successes have been trumpeted in the past, and Taliban sources said on Wednesday that Rahim had already been replaced by Mullah Nayeem as commander in Helmand. Last December, the Afghan Defence Ministry said Mullah Rahim Akhond, the Taliban's governor for Helmand, and Mullah Mateen Akhond, district governor in Musa Qala, had been caught. Various reasons have been put forward for Pakistan's inaction against Taliban in and around Quetta since the Islamist militia was driven from power by US backed forces in late 2001. Pakistan has said it has been given no actionable information by Afghanistan or NATO and maintained that top leaders, including Taliban supremo Mullah Mohammad Omar, were in Afghanistan. Some analysts say Pakistan fears a violent backlash from the Taliban and their sympathisers if they actively hunt down leaders of a movement that had been supported by the Pakistani military from the mid-1990s until late 2001. Other Pakistani, Afghan and American analysts say Pakistani intelligence is playing a double-game to keep alive Taliban assets to use as leverage to re-assert influence in Kabul once Western forces pull out of Afghanistan. Pakistan has actively hunted al Qaeda fighters in tribal areas, and been sucked into a conflict among the Pakistani Taliban based in the region. But Pakistan's record in combating Afghan Taliban has been patchy. In February, Mullah Mansour Dadullah, a commander who had been dismissed by Mullah Omar, was caught in Baluchistan. In March last year, Pakistani security forces in Quetta arrested Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, a former Taliban defence minister and third most senior member of its leadership council. Akhund's arrest was disclosed to Reuters by several security officials, though it was never confirmed by Pakistani authorities. Source: Reuters British NATO soldier killed in Afghanistan: ministry
AFP A British soldier serving with NATO forces in Afghanistan was killed in fighting with insurgents, the Ministry of Defence in London said Wednesday. The soldier, from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers attached to 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, died Tuesday in the Kajaki area of Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan. The soldier was part of a patrol which came under fire from insurgents. Two others were injured in the incident but their injuries are not thought to be life threatening. "Whilst returning fire, one soldier from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment was injured by a mine," the Ministry of Defence said in a statement. "While leaving the scene after suppressing the enemy, a vehicle other soldiers were travelling in hit a suspected IED (improvised explosive device). "One soldier from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment was injured and one soldier from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers sustained serious injuries. "The soldier from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, despite the best medical efforts at the scene, died a few minutes later." The latest casualty took to 139 the number of international soldiers killed in violence spawned by a Taliban-led insurgency. Nearly 220 troopers died last year. The death brings to 111 the number of British troops killed during operations in Afghanistan since 2001.
HUMANITARIAN
No articles featured today
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
