Moby Media Updates MMU Archives 2009 MMU: Talking Afghan Politics, 14 January 2009
| MMU: Talking Afghan Politics, 14 January 2009 |
|
|
|
|
MMU is brought to you by: Moby Group, www.mobygroup.com Afghanistan's largest media company with the nation's most popular broadcast brands ● TOLO TV ● Afghan Scene Magazine ● Lapis ● Kaboora ● ARMAN FM ● Barbud ● Afghan ITT ● LEMAR TV For more information, or to advertise with Moby Media Updates, contact: +93 (0) 799 32 10 10
Advertisement
14 JANUARY 2009
No articles featured today
Canada Renews Financial Aid to Afghanistan No articles featured today
The New Yorker "Karzai thinks he's Ahmed Shah Baba" Sayed Hamed Gailani, who is the First Deputy Speaker of Afghanistan's Senate, dropped by my office in Washington last Friday. He wore a plaid sport jacket and a tie. He is fifty-four-years-old, about five feet tall, and stocky. He sports a trimmed beard, but the impression he conveys, like many others in his prominent and international family, is of a man comfortable in the West. Hamed is the eldest son of Pir Sayed Ahmed Gailani, a spiritual leader of a Sufi order in Afghanistan who, during the anti-Soviet war of the nineteen-eighties, led the National Islamic Front of Afghanistan, one of the more liberal and pro-royal resistance groups. N.I.F.A. was one of the groups criticized during this period for being more effective in Congress than in the Afghan war. Ultimately, the Pakistan Army shunted them aside because they supported the centrist, exiled King of Afghanistan rather than the radical Islamist networks preferred by Pakistan's intelligence agency. Hamed Gailani wanted to talk, last week, because a presidential election is scheduled in Afghanistan late next year; just about every politician in the country seems to be maneuvering in advance of the campaign. President Hamid Karzai has said he intends to run for a second five-year term but there is a widespread sense that his position in the country, and as a client of the United States, is weakening; the effect of this perception has been to stimulate a sort of circling of political carrion birds. From week to week there are new rumors about who might decide to challenge Karzai; the Kabul "mentioner" has put into play Gailani's father, a brother of the late Tajik guerrilla leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, the former finance minister Ashraf Ghani, and several others-even Zalmay Khalilzad, outgoing U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (who has said he will not run). From my own less-than-purposeful rounds of the American national-security bureaucracy, I have the clear impression that there are at least some people working on Afghanistan from inside the U.S. government who would like to see a plausible opponent to Karzai emerge, but at the same time, that there is no sense of where such a candidate might come from, and little desire to force the issue. After all, down the path of electoral manipulation lies "The Man Who Would Be King"-and you will remember how that one ended. Gailani had come to the United States on a private visit and had sought out meetings with State Department, U.S. A.I.D., and Pentagon officials before swinging around to my think-tank office. (He had hoped to meet some people involved with the Obama Administration's transition team, but was unable to do so, he said.) It seemed clear that Hamed was hoping to stir interest in his father as a potential presidential candidate. Pir Gailani, as his father is known, is an ethnic Pashtun, like Karzai (and like the Taliban), and he is a religious figure with a popular following. However, he is also in his mid-seventies and has a reputation as a poor public speaker; some Afghan specialists I spoke to doubted he could be a serious contender for the presidency. Nonetheless, Hamed Gailani had some interesting things to say about the political scene in Afghanistan. On Karzai: The president is losing ground, there is no doubt about it, whether in the senate or in the lower house. His graph of popularity is quite low. So I think it is with the common man.His chances are very very dim.... He's not consulting anyone. He's not sharing anything. He really doesn't believe in collective participation. He thinks he's Ahmed Shah Baba [an eighteenth-century king regarded as the father of modern Afghanistan] and that he's going to keep it no matter what the cost. On the proposal to dispatch thirty thousand additional American troops to Afghanistan: A military surge for the sake of military surge serves no purpose. It is widening the ground of more confrontation and armed resistance and counterattacks. It's not going to be confined to Taliban alone. That will lead to a purposeless war, a surging war Your presence over there will just be for killing and being killed.The secret of success, and a continuous sustained presence of the United States of America is in a stable Afghanistan where the government has the confidence of the people and the people cooperate with that government. On negotiating with the Taliban: Mullah Omar will continue this fight. It doesn't matter how I try to convince him. We tell him, "The West has no problem with you?" He says, "Pardon me? They don't have a problem with me? If they don't have a problem, why is my name on a list? Why is Guantanamo my minimum punishment? The key to the Taliban's pacification or channeling them into the political process is nowhere else in the world...but in Pakistan The Pakistanis realize this fact that they can't hold onto this situation for too long. Either they tame them or engage them or they will have to hand them over. The Taliban, they know it too. They are not very comfortable with Pakistanis." On Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former C.I.A. ally turned anti-American guerrilla leader, now loosely allied with the Taliban: He says he's tired of being in exile, living in exile.He is in Pakistan. He's willing to come in.if there is a nationwide agenda. On U.S. policy toward candidates who might consider a run against Karzai next year: The signal as I have heard it directly from Ambassador Wood [in Kabul]-they favor the process, not one individual. That's a sound argument to my mind. I'm going to encourage that. No articles featured today Canada Renews Financial Aid to Afghanistan
Written by http://www.quqnoos.com/ Canada reaffirms financial commitment to Afghan reconstruction UN Special Representative Kai Eide on Tuesday praised the Government of Canada for a new 14 million Canadian dollar (US$11.5 million) contribution towards Afghanistan's humanitarian needs this winter, on top of its existing programmes for national and local development. Speaking at a news conference in Kabul, alongside Minister of Agriculture Muhammad Asif Rahimi and Canada's Minister for International Cooperation Beverley Oda, Special Representative Eide said that such assistance was essential. The contribution announced on Tuesday will go towards addressing urgent winter relief needs, including for the many people currently without sufficient food or livestock feed. Eide added that a joint Humanitarian Action Plan involving the Government and Donors and covering some $600 million in relief projects would be launched within weeks. Eide also echoed a call by Minister of Agriculture Rahimi to make agriculture a priority area for Afghanistan's longer-term development, alongside investment in large-scale infrastructure projects. "There is no need for Afghans to be suffering humanitarian crises over and over again," Eide said. "Afghanistan is poor but it's not destined to remain so.It can be prosperous if we emphasize agriculture and big infrastructure needs." Afghanistan's agriculture sector has since 2002 received relatively little investment and attention, but the Paris Conference of June 2008 made agriculture a priority area for the Government of Afghanistan and its international partners. Among recent UN initiatives has been a trip by Special Representative Eide to Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan in late 2008 to explore how the two Central Asian countries might work with Afghanistan in areas including water resource sharing for irrigation purposes. The Government of Afghanistan and the United Nations launched a joint appeal for US$404 million in humanitarian relief in July 2008, to help Afghanistan overcome food security and drought problems. To date the appeal is 53 percent funded ($215 million of $404 million requested). Of the UN's five main appealing agencies, the World Food Programme has received 72 percent ($133.7 million out of $185 million requested); the Food and Agriculture Organization has received 70.4 percent of its requested funds ($14.2m out of $20.15m); the UN Children's Fund has received 91 percent ($5.6m out of $6.2m); and the World Health Organization has received 55 percent ($1.2m out of $2.2m). US mission in Afghanistan tougher than Iraq
AFP The United States is hoping a strategy similar to the one it used to improve security in Iraq, including an influx of troops, will work in Afghanistan -- one of president-elect Barack Obama's priorities. But US and Afghan officials say the mission will be more difficult here as Afghanistan is splintered by tribal rivalries and weakened by the existence of militant safe havens across the border in Pakistan. "We cannot just take the tactics, techniques and procedures that worked in Iraq and employ them in Afghanistan," General David Petraeus, commander of US forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, recently told Foreign Affairs. At the start of 2006, Afghanistan was touted as a US military success, while Iraq was mired in a seemingly endless spiral of violence. Today, the tables have turned: 2008 was the deadliest year for US soldiers in Afghanistan since they arrived in 2001, and the least deadly in Iraq since the start of the invasion there in 2003. Washington helped reduce the violence in Iraq and pave the way for progress toward political reconciliation by sending more troops, intensifying operations and co-opting some of the rebels into militias paid to help maintain security. The US military is hoping to implement a similar plan in Afghanistan, where security has worsened in the past two years as the Taliban-led insurgency has gathered pace. Between 20,000 and 30,000 extra US troops are due in Afghanistan this year, almost doubling the number of American soldiers on the ground from the current 32,000 -- compared with 146,000 in Iraq. Nearly 35,000 troops from other countries are also deployed here. The bulk of the US reinforcements are expected to be sent to the south and east -- hotbeds of insurgent activity along the porous 2,400-kilometre (1,500-mile) border with Pakistan. US officials and senior Obama advisers told Tuesday's Washington Post that the deployments were not an Iraq-like "surge", but rather a way to gain time to re-evaluate US goals and develop a new sweeping strategy for Afghanistan. Last month, outgoing US President George W. Bush acknowledged an influx of troops here would likely make things worse before they get better. "You'll see violence tick up," Bush told reporters on Air Force One en route to Kabul for a farewell visit. "The degree of difficulty in Afghanistan is high. Nevertheless, the mission is essential." The differences between Iraq and Afghanistan are manifold, and the fight for Afghanistan could be far longer than the conflict in Iraq. Infrastructure here is dire, with a lack of secondary roads making it more difficult for troops to manoeuvre, and there are fewer skilled workers. Beyond the logistical difficulties, the main challenge appears to be whether foreign forces can maintain a semblance of stability long enough for Kabul to build up its own security forces. In Iraq, the US army has already handed over power to local authorities in 13 of 18 provinces with 560,000 policemen and 260,000 soldiers protecting 28 million people. The security forces in Afghanistan, which has a similar population but a larger surface area covered by rugged mountainous terrain, lag well behind those of Iraq, with only about 80,000 soldiers and 70,000 police. Corruption is rife in the police, while the absence of government authority in villages is often cited as a reason for the resurgence of the Taliban. To address these shortcomings, the United States has spoken of creating local militias -- as in Iraq -- for community-level security. But the idea has stirred concern in Kabul, which remembers all too well the bloody factional conflicts of the 1980s. "Afghanistan is not Iraq," said Hamidullah Tarzi, a finance minister in the 1989-1992 communist regime. "Here the people are much more divided and the tribal issue is very strong -- all these (new) militias are going to fight each other." Ahmad Nader Nadery, of Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission, says the answer lies not in a US troop surge, but in turning the conflict into "an Afghan war." "The solution is to reform the police and to reinforce the army," he told AFP. Another complicating factor for the United States is the question of how to flush Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked militants out of Pakistan's lawless tribal zones along the Afghan border. "One cannot adequately address the challenges in Afghanistan without adding Pakistan into the equation," Petraeus has said. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai pledged a new era of cooperation following talks in Kabul last week. But questions remain about Islamabad's ability to control its powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which Kabul says is the godfather of the Taliban. The United States could also face problems if its NATO partners abandon the fight. The alliance's supreme commander, US General Bantz Craddock, predicted that US forces would have to be in Afghanistan for "at least" a decade. But he admitted that financial concerns and low public support could prompt European countries to pull troops out just as Obama looks for back-up. Pakistan, Afghanistan will be Obama's priority: Hillary
Dawn US Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton told her confirmation hearing on Tuesday that fighting terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan would be the highest priority of the Obama administration. "It is imperative that we work with our friends in both Pakistan and Afghanistan" to defeat terrorists in that region, she told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "The democratically elected government in Pakistan seems to be much more aware (than the previous government) of how this is their fight, not just ours," she added. Both President-elect Barack Obama and Senator Clinton believe that the United States should make a more focussed commitment to stabilising Afghanistan and to pushing Pakistan to eliminate the so-called terrorist havens in Fata. Senator John Kerry, the committee's new chairman, agreed with her, saying that "Pakistan and Afghanistan are definitively the front line of our global counterterrorism efforts." Mr Kerry said in an interview on Monday that as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he would push for tripling non-military US aid to Pakistan, putting that country and Afghanistan at the top of his panel's agenda in the new Congress. In his opening statement in Senator Clinton's confirmation hearing, Senator Kerry also stressed the need for establishing a stable state in Afghanistan. Senator Kerry warned that the US faced "a gargantuan task" in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to succeed there it must "fundamentally redefine" its approach. "We went into Afghanistan to deny Al Qaeda sanctuary. Our goals must be defined by our original mission, by the regional security context, and by the tribal, decentralised nature of the Afghan society," he added. In her written statement to the committee, Ms Clinton noted that the 70 days since the US presidential election offered fresh evidence of the urgency of the challenges confronting the United States. She listed the new conflict in Gaza and terrorist attacks in Mumbai on the top of her list of new challenges that will test the Obama administration. "Equally important will be a comprehensive plan using all elements of our power - diplomacy, development and defence - to work with those in Afghanistan and Pakistan who want to root out Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other violent extremists who threaten them as well as us," she said. Senator Clinton noted that Mr Obama had called the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan the central front in the fight against terrorism. "We need to deepen our engagement with these and other countries in the region and pursue policies that improve the lives of the Afghan and Pakistani people," she said. U.S. Construction in Afghanistan Sign of Long Commitment
Washington Post, United States The Army is building $1.1 billion worth of military bases and other facilities in Afghanistan and is planning to start an additional $1.3 billion in projects this year, according to Col. Thomas E. O'Donovan, commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Afghanistan District. Massive construction of barracks, training areas, headquarters, warehouses and airfields for use by U.S. and Afghan security forces -- which could reach $4 billion -- signals a long-term U.S. military commitment at a time when the incoming Obama administration's policy for the Afghan war is unclear. The new facilities will help house the three additional U.S. combat brigades already announced along with the planned expansion of the Afghan army. "We plan to support the flow of forces," O'Donovan said, "but some may have to sleep and eat in tents until we reach initial operating capacity." Meanwhile, security problems are increasing, not only at construction sites but also in the effort to truck materials into landlocked Afghanistan from Pakistan, O'Donovan said. "Contract employees are being attacked, kidnapped and killed -- Afghans, Pakistanis, Filipinos, Turks -- by those who are trying to stop us," he said in a phone interview from Kabul. Contractors on the Afghan projects are required to provide their own security, "but there is close coordination with U.S. and Afghan forces," he said. Up to 15 percent of contractors' costs pay for security, he added. With a constant flow of steel, lumber, cement and other supplies that must be transported into the country, "we have had a challenge," O'Donovan said, because supply convoys are being struck as they move inside Afghanistan. The U.S. Army in Kabul has advertised for civilian contractors to provide security escort teams for truck convoys once they enter the country, according to a December solicitation. The contract is for one year with an option for two additional years. If it were to run three years, the solicitation document said, the cost could reach $97 million. The United States has been building major facilities in Afghanistan for years. By 2004, the Pentagon said the Army Corps of Engineers had built 186 barracks buildings and 22 administration buildings for the Afghan army. One measure of the speed of new U.S. military construction in Afghanistan is the variety of projects put out for bid last month. On Dec. 2, bids were sought for a contract exceeding $10 million to build a compound that will serve as a new forward operating base in Badghis province in northwest Afghanistan. It is to house 650 Afghan soldiers and 25 U.S. trainers. On Dec. 3, bids were sought on a contract that could exceed $10 million for new runways and other facilities at Shank Air Base, south of Kabul. This base has until now housed 150 U.S. troops, 200 Czech troops, eight Czech civilians and 50 employees of the U.S. military contractor KBR. Also on Dec. 3, bids for what could become a $100 million contract were put out for three projects at the Kandahar airfield to house up to 3,000 U.S. soldiers. On Christmas Eve, two more solicitations for projects that each could cost $100 million were published for installations to handle new Afghan army battalions, one in Gardez, south of Kabul, and another in Kandahar. A Defense Department audit, completed last month, evaluated 10 Afghan projects already underway valued at $250 million. They include a $40 million military training center near Kabul for the Afghan army that features a 600-person student barracks, four buildings for 1,000 more troops, a large dining facility and a multipurpose gymnasium. An additional $25 million at the Kabul training center was for construction of four more student barracks, administrative and classroom buildings, and a military police compound. Pakistan torn over how to handle Taliban
Emirates Business 24/7 - News After years allowing Taliban militants to operate in the rugged tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, Pakistan is now torn over how to respond to US calls for decisive action against extremists. Islamabad is under intense pressure from Washington, other western nations and Kabul to eliminate Taliban and Al-Qaeda havens in the tribal belt, from where fighters are said to stage attacks on foreign forces in Afghanistan. But experts say Pakistan's desire to please the United States, a vital political and military ally, has run up against its own strategic interests in the region and its loyalty to Pashtuns, the predominant ethnicity among the Taliban. "Pakistan's Taliban policy has suffered from indecisiveness, inconsistency and ambiguity," political analyst Hasan Askari told AFP. "Pakistan's choices will become tougher in the future because its efforts to control the Taliban do not enjoy support throughout society. A good number of ordinary people see India as more of a threat than the Taliban." The extremist Taliban movement emerged in the mid-1990s from Islamic schools along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and -- with Islamabad's support -- eventually seized power in Kabul in 1996. At the time, Pakistan's security establishment wanted a pro-Islamabad regime in Kabul that would give the country a foothold in Afghanistan, and much-needed strategic depth in the region to use against its nuclear-armed rival India. President Pervez Musharraf disowned the regime following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States -- carried out by Al-Qaeda which was being harboured by the Taliban. However, he allowed thousands of Taliban to enter his country's northwest tribal belt after their ouster in a US-led invasion in late 2001. "Pakistan did not want to sever all of its links with the Taliban movement, as doing so would have Pakistan totally out of the regional power game in Afghanistan," defence analyst Riffat Hussain told AFP. Fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar is still widely believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas. "Tens of thousands of Taliban poured into Pakistan's northwest and southwest but security forces were under strict orders only to arrest Al-Qaeda members," a senior security official with knowledge of counter-terrorism policy told AFP. Hussain, head of strategic studies at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, said former military ruler Musharraf, who resigned last year, had two reasons for tolerating the militants' presence on Pakistani soil. "Musharraf personally believed that there were many good Taliban who should be co-opted in the post-Taliban power dispensation in Afghanistan," Hussain said. Islamabad also wanted an "insurance policy" against the US-backed government of Afghan Presideistani soil would have angered ethnic Pashtuns at home, saying: "Antagonising them completely is against our long-term national interest." But putting up with the Taliban was a risky policy, and security officials say it has backfired, as the extremists formed alliances with other militant groups and started attacking Pakistani targets. Those militant groups -- such as that of renegade warlord Baitullah Mehsud, believed to have masterminded the assassination of Pakistani former premier Benazir Bhutto -- are now allied with the Al-Qaeda network. "For years Pakistan targeted Al-Qaeda and tolerated the Taliban, but this policy has failed and resulted in making the Taliban a strong force not just in Afghanistan, but in many parts of Pakistan," a top security official told AFP. Musharraf's successor Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani now must review Pakistan's role in the US-led "war on terror," which may mean a rethink on the Taliban. "Pakistan will be asked to become the anvil for the hammer of American special forces operations in the tribal areas," Hussain said, predicting that Islamabad could be asked to stage joint anti-militant operations with the US. Askari agreed, but said Islamabad would ask Washington to put a stop to attacks on militant targets in the border zone by unmanned CIA aircraft because "they create credibility problems" for the Pakistani government. "Pakistan faces a double challenge -- controlling the Taliban in the tribal areas and containing militant groups based in mainland Pakistan," Askari said. "Unless there is a simultaneous development of internal stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the problem may not be addressed." Has Obama incorporated Bush's war policy?: A response to McClanahan
Kansas City Star, MO KC Star columnist Tom McClanahan asserts (by quoting a blog from another source) that President-elect Obama has adopted the Bush administration policy in Iraq because Vice-President-elect Biden has provided assurances to Iraq that agreements with Iraq will be maintained. The quoted blog offers what sounds to my ear like a taunt, asking how liberals will attempt to explain away Bush's victory in Iraq. OK, whether I'm a liberal is a matter of definition, but I definitely disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq. So I'll rise to the challenge and will attempt to give a respectful answer. The question is whether Obama is accepting Bush's policy or vice-versa. In the run-up to the election, Mr. Obama insisted on a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, and that is what Mr. Bush was forced to accept when Iraq refused to accept anything else, threatening not to sign an agreement and make the U.S. occupation illegal by the end of 2008. The President-elect got what he wanted, and the Iraqis got what they wanted: Control of U.S. forces in their country. In any event, it was widely recognized that withdrawal from Iraq would take time for a variety of reasons, not the least being the logistical problem of removing the massive amount of equipment there. In addition, no matter one's position on the wisdom of the war, no one wants the fragile Iraqi government to fail either, and there is a risk of that if troops were to be immediately withdrawn. The President-elect's position is a responsible one. The problem is that a collapse of the Iraqi government will always be a possibility. The Sunni/Shiite conflict is as deeply entrenched as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. U.S. troops might have to stay in Iraq permanently to keep the warring parties apart in Iraq, if that is something America decides it needs or has to do. And that is precisely the reason why Mr. Bush's occupation of Iraq was always a bad idea and why the notion of a victory in Iraq will not be certain. As Mr. Bush himself says, he awaits the judgment of history, an admission that he took on a Hurculean task, perhaps a fool's errand, by invading the country. I'd be inclined not to encourage actions whose potential benefits are so tentative, so costly and so distant. Call me short-sighted. Call me liberal. But I prefer not to bleed to death in someone else's desert and ache thinking of the young men and women who have. If (and it's a big if) the U.S. has won a victory in Iraq, it is a Pyrrhic victory at best. Mr. Bush's decision to approve the surge was likely a good move to suppress the violence in Iraq, but it's also true that the surge wouldn't have helped without the political negotiations that many Democrats, including Obama, said were necessary. Whether any of the gains will persist permanently is not at all certain. In any event, President-Elect Obama now has to clean up the mess that remains. He'll be blamed if the Iraqi government is overthrown and will get no credit if it is not. Ultimately, we should all probably get over castigating or defending Mr. Bush for the decision to go to war. The deed is done, and he is about ready to leave the building. And that is a reason for posting this response as a separate article on this site. Though we on this site are not likely to have any meaningful impact on future defense decisions, the most serious question on the horizon is whether to double down in Afghanistan, rising the same sort of quagmire faced in Iraq. Mr. Obama promised to do for Afghanistan what Mr. Bush did for Iraq: send in a surge. Will this work? What will it cost? Is it worthwhile? Despite Mr. Obama's assertions about the need, I'm a skeptic about the ability of any power to tame a tribal nation and invite others to discuss this issue here. Though I disagree with Mr. McClanahan's position on the Iraq war, I don't wish to be antagonistic and ask all who agree with me to refrain from responses here that could be read as taunts or personal attacks on anyone, even if provoked by other responses. Let the discussion on Iraq and now Afghanistan be thoughtful and respectful as the seriousness of the subject requires. Obama agrees to major US force increase in Afghanistan: report
AFP President-elect Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan to gain time to review the conflict, the Washington Post reported Tuesday. The new deployments would nearly double the current US force in Afghanistan of 32,000 troops. According to the Post, which cites unnamed senior Obama team members and Bush administration officials, the goal is not for an Iraq-like "surge" but rather to gain time for a fresh look at US goals and develop a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan. Obama, who takes office on January 20, has vowed to boost development in Afghanistan and shift the focus of the "war on terror" from Baghdad to Kabul. A US troop increase in Afghanistan was anticipated. "We have no strategic plan. We never had one," an unnamed senior US military commander told the Post, describing the Afghan strategy under President George W. Bush. According to the Post, the outlines of the new strategy will not likely emerge before early April, when Afghanistan and Pakistan will top the agenda at a NATO summit in France. Obama hopes to present the Europeans a comprehensive plan, then ask them for increased military and financial contributions. "What they've got to say is 'Okay, if you love Obama, show us how much'," another retired senior military officer told the Post. There are currently between 60,000 and 70,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, about three-quarters of them under NATO command, helping the government of President Hamid Karzai battle a mounting Taliban-led insurgency. Kyrgyzstan threatens to shut key US airbase
Telegraph The main US airbase supplying troops in Afghanistan could be closed down by the government of Kyrgyzstan in return for billions of dollars of Russian investment. President Kurmanbek Bakiyev is said to be preparing to announce the closure of Manas airbase, which acts as the main air hub for military supplies and troops travelling into Afghanistan. Coalition forces have already been forced to seek alternative supply lines into Afghanistan after the main Khyber Pass road from Pakistan has seen repeated closures after attacks from Taliban militants. A Russian newspaper reported that Manas would be closed in return for £1.3 billion of Russian investment. The US State Department said it was not aware of any plans to close the base, but sources close to the Kyrgyz president said he will announce the closure before visiting Moscow later this month. Manas airbase, 20 miles from the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, was established in 2001 as US forces helped topple the Taliban regime in nearby Afghanistan. It now holds around 1,000 military personnel, but despite bringing in millions of dollars in rent, the US presence is unpopular with many in the country. Both Russia and China have also been angered by the presence of a US base in a strategic region they consider to be within their sphere of influence. Kyrgyzstan has used the strategic importance of the base to try to gain funding from the US and Russia, prompting speculation that the latest announcement is an attempt to negotiate better terms. Aid Offered to Curb Opium Cultivation
Written by http://www.quqnoos.com/ Government offers incentives to opium farmers Farmers in Farah province complaining over lack of agricultural resources. The Ministry of Counter Narcotics said if farmers in this province stop growing opium, more aid will be sent to them. Farah and Helmand provinces are the focal point for opium production in Afghanistan. This year saw opium cultivation increase significantly in many areas of Farah province. The Ministry of Counter Narcotics hopes that incentives not to grow opium in exchange for greater aid distribution, will see a reduction in Opium planting. Farah governor Roohul Amin said some farmers promised to not grow opium but continue to plant poppy seed in some parts of the province Farah province farmers complain over lack of facilities, drought, and lack of an adequate irrigation system which hampers their harvests. Farah has many smuggling routes into Iran and is key area for narco-smuggling and other illegal contraband traffic. Fighting drugs is considered to be one of the expensive objectives of the international community in Afghanistan, but according to experts counter-drug efforts have only met with limited success and Afghanistan remains a major illegal drug producer in the world. India to gift 250K metric tons of wheat to Afghanistan
ANI India has announced that it will gift 250,000 metric tons of wheat to Afghanistan to help that country tide over its current food crisis. The announcement was made through a joint statement issued after talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and visiting Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. The eight-point statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs said: "Prime Minister Dr. Singh further conveyed that in order to help the fraternal people of Afghanistan in tiding over their current food crisis, India will gift Afghanistan 250,000 metric tonnes of wheat. The shipment will be effected immediately, as soon as the Government of Afghanistan has worked out its transportation arrangements." The statement also said that President Karzai expressed Afghanistan's solidarity with the Government and people of India in the wake of the Mumbai terrorist attack. It further added that the leaders have called for the full compliance with bilateral, multilateral and international obligations of States to prevent terrorism in any manner originating from territories under their control since terrorism emanates from the sanctuaries and training camps and the sustenance and support received by the terrorist groups. They also reviewed their robust, strategic partnership,and expressed satisfaction at the progress in bilateral development and reconstruction projects in all parts of Afghanistan. Prime MinisterSingh informed President Karzai that, following the completion of the road from Zaranj to Delaram in South-western Afghanistan, a second major infrastructure project, the Pul-e-Khumri to Kabul transmission line and the sub-station at Chimtala in Northern Afghanistan, will be handed over shortly to the Government of Afghanistan. President Karzai invited Prime Minister Singh for a State Visit to Afghanistan. The invitation was accepted with pleasure. The dates will be finalised through diplomatic channels. Obama spokesman says president-elect will end 'don't ask, don't tell'
San Francisco Chronicle, USA President-elect Barack Obama will end the 15-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has prevented homosexual and bisexual men and women from serving openly within the U.S. military, an Obama spokesman said. Obama said during the campaign that he opposed the policy, but since his election in November he has made statements that have been interpreted as backpedaling. On Friday, however, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, responding on the transition team's Web site to a Michigan resident who asked if the new administration planned to get rid of the policy, said: "You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.' " The little-noticed response, made in a video posted on change.gov, made barely a ripple outside blogs focused on the gay community, but that's not surprising, said those who have been pushing to overturn the ban. Not only was Obama's position expected, they said, but support for reviewing or repealing the policy has grown markedly in recent years, including some from unexpected quarters. The end of "don't ask, don't tell" might not happen immediately, several critics of the policy said. Although they appreciate clarity from Obama on the issue, they anticipate that the demands of the economy and two wars are likely to trump a speedy policy reversal. "The question isn't if we do it, and the question isn't when we do it, it's how we do it," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, whose 2006 bill to repeal the ban earned broad support among Democrats in Congress but did not move forward in the face of a near-certain veto by President Bush. "I'm going to reintroduce the bill in the next few weeks," Tauscher said. "We've got the American people behind us." An ABC poll in July found that three quarters of Americans supported allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military compared to 44 percent of Americans who expressed the same support in 1993, when President Clinton approved "don't ask, don't tell" as what he called an "honorable compromise" that nevertheless bitterly disappointed his supporters in the gay community. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell and former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., both of whom backed the 1993 policy, recently called for it to be reevaluated. John Shalikashvili, who followed Powell as chairman, has called for its repeal, as has former Georgia Republican Rep. Bob Barr, an opponent of gay rights and legal protections for gays. In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Barr disparaged the policy as wasting money and talent. The current leaders of the military, secretary of Defense Robert Gates and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen, have neither supported nor opposed ending the policy in recent comments, saying pointedly that Congress and the president make the laws. The military follows them. Recently, the main active support for "don't ask, don't tell" has come from the nonprofit Center for Military Readiness, whose founder, Elaine Donnelly, and other officers did not respond to requests for comment. Donnelly has argued that ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military would devastate unit cohesion and morale by ordering heterosexual troops into "forced cohabitation" with openly gay and lesbian troops. But critics of the policy say society has changed since "don't ask, don't tell" was implemented to address similar concerns. "We had a decade in the 1990s where people came out, and people came to know that their sisters and their mothers and their colleagues and their children and their friends were gay," said Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow with the Palm Center at UC Santa Barbara, which conducts research on sexual minorities in the military. "Familiarity breeds tolerance and even acceptance." More recent years have seen the high-profile discharge of gay Arabic linguists and other troops whose military jobs were deemed essential in Iraq, Afghanistan and the "war on terror" - dismissals that struck many people as inexplicable, said sociologist Melissa Embser-Herbert, author of "The U.S. Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy: A Reference Handbook." "We know of gay, lesbian, bisexual veterans who have served in combat theater, and I think that's also a big piece of it," she said. "It's a much harder sell to the general public that that person who died or lost a leg didn't deserve to be serving their country." The military also has experienced a shift in attitudes, according to a number of studies. A 2006 Zogby International poll found military members who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan to be split on the issue, with about a quarter saying gays should be able to serve openly and about a third saying they should not. But about a quarter of respondents said they knew a gay person already serving in the military, and a large majority of those - two thirds - said the presence of a gay person in their unit made no impact on their personal or their unit's morale. Three quarters said they would have joined the military even if gays were permitted to serve openly. A more recent, if unscientific, readership survey by the Military Times group of newspapers reported that about 58 percent of active-duty respondents opposed repealing the ban, a number that was cited in some media accounts as reflecting broad military opposition to a change. But the newspapers that conducted the poll warned that their readers were not a perfect mirror of the military - they were more likely to be older, male, careerists, officers and politically conservative. In that context, Embser-Herbert said, it is remarkable that the level of opposition was not higher, since it is the younger, enlisted troops who are more likely to favor allowing gays to serve openly. "It's the 'Will and Grace' generation," she said. "They've grown up seeing gay people on TV and having friends in 10th grade come out." In the 1980s, when John Caldera was a Navy hospital corpsman, "don't ask, don't tell" was not yet policy but was practice. Caldera, a gay man now a member of the San Francisco Veterans Commission, recalled how sailors diagnosed with HIV were sequestered to a ward to await the inevitable investigation of their presumed homosexuality and likely discharge. "The policy ... should have never been created," he said. "With this new administration I look for the light at the end of the tunnel." Today, Caldera is one of several gay veterans in American Legion District 8 in San Francisco whose commander, Michael Gerold, a veteran injured in a firefight in Afghanistan, appointed an openly gay veteran as district finance officer without hesitation. "He's an Iraq-Afghanistan veteran. It's just not an issue. Core competencies and leadership, that's what I need," he said. "I don't give a darn about the rest." Another legion officer, Matt Shea, chief of staff of American Legion Post 911, recalled deploying to Iraq with a friend and fellow squad leader who later came out to him. "It's about competence, about being able to do your job. He was a better leader than most, took care of his guys better than most I'd seen," said Shea. "Who ... cares? Seriously." E-mail Matthew B. Stannard at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Afghans fear US plan to rearm villagers
FT.com Afghan authorities are struggling to reach agreement on a US-backed plan to help villages defend themselves against Taliban fighters. Many Afghans fear the proposals will lead to the emergence of a new generation of lawless militias. US planners want to start a pilot scheme in a single district in Wardak, an increasingly dangerous province south of Kabul, as soon as possible with a view to extending it to help turn the tide against the Taliban insurgency which threatens Nato supply chains and this year's presidential election. Muhammad Halim Fidai, the governor of Wardak, said there was an urgent need to help villages defend themselves. "We don't have enough police to keep the Taliban out of these villages and we don't have time to train more police - we have to fill the gap now." However, there is no agreement on which ministry should control the scheme, how many people should be recruited in individual villages, who should pay their salaries, or even what they should be called. William Wood, the US ambassador, described them last month as "community guards". General McKiernan, the senior US general in Afghanistan, briefed western diplomats on "community outreach" while some Afghan officials call them "public guards". There is uncertainty about how such forces should defend themselves against well-armed Taliban fighters who have terrorised villages into submission by brutally executing government sympathisers. Handing out weapons to informal forces has the potential to create enormous embarrassment for the international community. It has poured millions of dollars into disarming militias, which often tyrannised ordinary people. Mr Wood was adamant the US would not provide any weapons, and would restrict its involvement to supplying uniforms, training and other equipment. But one senior official in the interior ministry said his department would be in charge of finding suitable weapons, possibly by repairing "old and broken" guns. At the same time Mohammad Masom Stanekzai, a vice-chairman of Afghanistan's disarmament organisation, said members of the guard forces would be encouraged to supply first their own weapons, which would allow the government to increase the number of weapons that have been officially registered. The only thing clear is that many Afghans are deeply suspicious of any- thing that could bring back the return of the factional fighting of the 1990s, which paved the way for the rise of the fundamentalist Taliban regime. The plan also risks aggravating tensions between Afghans in the north of the country, where many former commanders have given up their weapons, and the south and east, which are most likely to receive weapons under the programme. Mr Stanekzai said all ministries involved were determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past, not least the hastily conceived and ill-fated 2006 auxiliary police scheme which led to the recruitment and arming of barely trained men, many of whom were drug addicts. He said the defence forces would be under a clear "command and control mechanism" and would be "owned by" the village shuras , or traditional representative councils, which will help to recruit men. "This is not the rearming of militias, because we won't be handing all the funding to individual militia leaders - that just leads the men to be loyal to the militia leader, not the government." But one western diplomat said details were too sketchy to be reassuring. "Who will select these shuras ? Who guards the guardians?" *Pakistani forces attacked militants in mountains near the Afghan border yesterday, government officials said. The action came after more than 600 al-Qaeda-linked militants attacked a paramilitary force camp and two checkpoints in the Mohmand region, to the north of Peshawar in Pakistan, on Saturday night killing six soldiers and wounding seven, the force said. The paramilitaries said they pushed back the militants, killing 40. In final Cabinet meeting, Bush says leave with 'solid record'
Associated Press President George W. Bush he's leaving Washington with "a great sense of accomplishment" and his head "held high." Bush gathered his Cabinet for a final meeting today. He said his administration had achieved "a good, solid" record and he's "very proud of it." He cited improvements in test scores among minority students, a Medicare prescription drug benefit, lower taxes, a reorganized military, declining drug use among teenagers and new trade deals. Sitting between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates he also touted his "Freedom Agenda," referring to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and efforts to fight poverty and disease overseas." Most of all, he said his administration had worked to protect the country from harm. Obama to seek Europe's help to boost efforts in Afghanistan
Monsters and Critics - General.Features Washington - US president-elect Barack Obama believes the invasion of Iraq undermined the effort to defeat the Taliban and al- Qaeda in Afghanistan and has vowed to reinvigorate the effort there after taking office on Tuesday. Obama campaigned on withdrawing US troops from Iraq and redeploying them to Afghanistan, where US and NATO forces are struggling to cope with an insurgent Taliban and violence that, during the last year, has rivalled the bloodshed in Iraq. Obama has stated that President George W Bush lost focus in the war on terrorism by turning his attention to Saddam Hussein's regime after the Taliban was ousted following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 'The central front in the war on terror is not in Iraq, and it never was,' Obama said during the campaign. 'The central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the terrorists who hit us on 9/11 are still plotting attacks seven years later.' Obama is expected to seek more support in Afghanistan from his European counterparts, including from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy has already signalled a willingness to add several hundred more troops, but their use would remain restricted. Germany and France have nearly 3,000 troops each in Afghanistan, but they are limited to peacekeeping, rebuilding and training missions, and are banned from participating in the heavy fighting in southern and eastern Afghanistan. The US has about 30,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and along with the British, Canadians, Danes and Dutch, has shouldered the brunt of the fight against the Taliban. With more deployments on the way, the US presence in Afghanistan could double by mid-2009. The Bush administration has been frustrated by the unwillingness of other NATO allies to send more soldiers or lift restrictions on their use. The majority of French and German citizens oppose their military presence in Afghanistan and it will not be easy for Obama to persuade Merkel or Sarkozy to do more, even after Bush and his unpopular policies are gone. Merkel, presiding over a 'grand coalition' between her conservative CDU party and the SPD on the left, is facing re-election in September. Obama's popularity in Europe might not be enough for her to go along with more troops and risk the criticism from her main opponent, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Days after Obama's election, Merkel made it clear she will not yield to pressure to send troops to fight and will have the same response she had to Bush's requests. For Obama to succeed on the issue in Europe, he will have to maintain a sustained dialogue to persuade the German and French public that it's in their national security interests to ensure that NATO prevails in Afghanistan, rather than to simply make demands, said Jackson Janes, an analyst of US-European relations at the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at Johns Hopkins University. 'Obama needs to get into their heads that we are not just talking about Bush now, we are talking about a strategic framework,' Janes said. On the other hand, after years of complaining about Bush, Europe should show a desire to help Obama tackle the vast foreign policy challenges he will face after he takes office, Janes said. 'There has to be a willingness on the part of the European leadership to want to help this man,' Janes said. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has been reviewing the strategy in Afghanistan and could outline a new approach after Obama takes office. The plans will likely employ some of the counterinsurgency strategies used successfully in Iraq. Ultimately, prevailing in Afghanistan largely depends on whether Pakistan can clamp down on the Taliban militants who find refuge along the rugged border areas to launch attacks on US and NATO forces. Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said the Pentagon is working on a comprehensive approach that includes ways to counter the Taliban's use of Pakistan's remote, mountainous frontier regions to mount crossborder raids on coalition forces. "Where Things Stand" Iraq and Afghanistan Polls A review of ABC News public opinion polls in Iraq and Afghanistan
ABC News As part of its award-winning "Where Things Stand" series, ABC News has sponsored five national public opinion polls in Iraq since 2004 and three in Afghanistan since 2005. Its coverage of these unique surveys has won several national news awards, including two Emmys, the first in the history of the news Emmys to cite public opinion polls. Each of these surveys has been conducted through face-to-face interviews, in Arabic, Kurdish, Dari and Pashto, by trained interviewers with random national samples of Iraqi and Afghan adults. Question subjects have ranged from living conditions and experience of violence to personal aspirations, economic and emotional well-being and political and social attitudes. The surveys have detailed the contours of public opinion in the wake of the U.S.-led invasions of these two countries, providing an essential element to public understanding of conditions there and helping to inform the debate over U.S. and international policy. Over time the data series in each country has traced the aftermath of U.S. and international involvement through success and failure alike. In Afghanistan, the first ABC News survey found difficult living conditions but strong support for the ousting of the Taliban regime and high expectations for future development. ABC's subsequent surveys there, however, found growing frustration with the slow pace of development, continued and growing experience of violence and lessened objections to the Taliban in some areas. These data underscored the link between violence levels, development efforts, the presence of both U.S. and Afghan forces and support for their mission. The surveys in Iraq found initial support for the U.S. invasion, but of a more grudging nature, with sharp differences between Shiite and Sunni Arabs and Kurds in the north. What followed was an increasing spiral of despair as the country descended into sectarian strife, peaking in early 2007; then some improvement as violence subsided in the wake of the surge of U.S. forces and the arrangement of Sunni participation in security efforts. Each of these surveys employed rigorous area-probability sampling based on the latest available population data, with randomized household and respondent-selection procedures and back-checks for quality control. They've been supported with photos and video from interviews in the field, and in some cases with journal entries from interviewers describing their sometimes-harrowing field work experiences. ABC's last three surveys in Iraq were conducted by D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., and KA Research Ltd. of Istanbul. ABC's Afghanistan surveys were conducted by the Afghan Center for Social and Opinion Research, a Kabul-based firm co-owned by D3 Systems, in conjunction with Charney Research of New York. The first two Iraq polls were conducted by Oxford Research International. Ensuring global distribution of the results, ABC News invited international media partnership in these projects. Each of the Iraq polls has been co-sponsored by the BBC, and individual projects also included the German network ARD, the Japanese network NHK, Time magazine, USA Today and the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel. The BBC or BBC World Service participated in two of the Afghanistan polls, ARD in one. ABC News won Emmy awards for "Best Story in a Regularly Scheduled Newscast" recognizing its coverage of the April 2004 and March 2007 polls in Iraq. Coverage of the 2005 polls in Iraq and Afghanistan alike received the inaugural Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls, from the University of Iowa School of Journalism and The Gallup Organization; and the 2006 National Council on Public Polls award for Excellence in Media Coverage of Polls. Individual details of these surveys follow. IRAQ Field dates: Feb. 12 to 20, 2008 Details: 2,228 interviews via 461 sampling points, oversamples in Anbar province, Sadr City, Basra city, Kirkuk city, Mosul. Media partners: ABC/ BBC/ARD/NHK Field work: D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., and KA Research Ltd. of Istanbul Analysis Interviewer journal Photo slideshow Chart slideshow Field dates: Aug. 17-24, 2007 Details: 2,212 interviews via 457 sampling points, oversamples in Anbar province, Sadr City, Basra city, Kirkuk city Media partners: ABC/BBC/NHK Field work: D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., and KA Research Ltd. of Istanbul, Turkey. Analysis Interviewer journal Photo slideshow Chart slideshow Field dates: Feb. 25-March 5, 2007 Details: 2,212 interviews via 458 sampling points, oversamples in Anbar province, Sadr City, Basra city, Kirkuk city Media partners: ABC/USA Today/ BBC/ARD Field work: D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., and KA Research Ltd. of Istanbul Analysis Interviewer journal and here. Photo slideshow Field dates: Oct. 8-Nov. 22, 2005 Details: 1,711 interviews via 135 sampling points, Anbar province oversample Media partners: ABC/BBC/NHK/Time/Der Spiegel Field work: Oxford Research International Analysis Photo slideshow Field dates: Feb. 9-28, 2004 Details: 2,737 interviews via 223 sampling points Media partners: ABC/BBC/NHK/ARD Field work: Oxford Research International Analysis Photo slideshow AFGHANISTAN Field dates: Oct. 28-Nov. 7, 2007 Details: 1,377 interviews via 176 sampling points, oversamples in Nangarhar, Helmand, Kandahar, Herat, Balkh and Kunduz provinces Media partners: ABC/BBC/ARD Field work: Charney Research and Afghan Center for Social and Opinion Research, Kabul Analysis Photo slideshow Chart slideshow Field dates: Oct. 14-19, 2006 Details: 1,036 interviews via 118 sampling points Media partners: ABC/BBC WS Field work: Charney Research and Afghan Center for Social and Opinion Research, Kabul Analysis Field dates: Oct. 8-18, 2005 Details: 1,039 interviews via 104 sampling points Media sponsor: ABC News Field work: Charney Research and Afghan Center for Social and Opinion Research, Kabul Analysis Photo slideshow Afghan Government to Launch HIV Treatment Program
Written by http://www.quqnoos.com/ According to reports about 500 people are diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in Afghanistan For the first time, people living with HIV/AIDS in Afghanistan will soon receive antiretroviral therapy from the government, the ministry of public health announced recently. This program will begin in the next year, and 40 people will be treated for the first time, according to the public health ministry. According to reports about 500 people are diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and there are an additional 2,000 undocumented HIV/AIDS cases nationwide, but true estimates are difficult to obtain. Saif ur-Rehman, head of the national HIV/AIDS program at the health ministry, said that $50,000 has been allocated to supply the antiretrovirals and that the ministry "will allocate more in the future and this program will improve the patient's defense system against HIV viruses. Saif ur-Rehman, head of the national HIV/AIDS program at the The Health ministry said that 60% percent of people contracted HIV/ AIDs through intravenous drug use. A Little More Conversation is Key for Afghanistan
DemocracyArsenal.org, NY Even as the bulk of foreign policy attention stays fixed on events in Gaza, a real debate is beginning to open up over the Obama administration's plans to tackle the Afghanistan problem. Bob Herbert and Russ Feingold have registered their skepticism about U.S. plans for the region and a new entrant to the discussion, a group called Get Afghanistan Right, which opposes "military escalation in Afghanistan" and supports "non-military solutions to the conflict," just launched yesterday. Spencer looked at Get Afghanistan Right's genesis yesterday, in a post that drew out a lot of the broader complexities which have so far characterized progressive conversations about Afghanistan. Spencer is right, that the general ambivalence, skepticism, even flat-out opposition is understandable, in part because the strategy for Afghanistan is not yet known, and also because progressive arguments for reprioritizing Afghanistan have been linked rather closely to the debate about Iraq, which is itself a notable conversation, both in terms of the diversity of views expressed, and its political salience. Moving forward, as progressives continue to discuss the merits and pitfalls of greater U.S. involvement in Afghanistan (and the broader region), it's going to be important to identify a few shared parameters for the discussion, partially to defend against conservatives trying to turn the issue into a fifth column, and critically, so that everyone gets the full benefit of one another's views as the Obama administration develops its policy. There's no guarantee that a vigorous exchange will result in the best policy, but a replay of the early days of the Iraq debate, which was marked by acquiescence, stifled conversations, and bitter disagreements, is in no one's interest. So as the conversations pick up, I thought I'd throw out a possible guide posts to act as common principles. These are by no means definitive, but I do think they're a useful starting point. 1st Embrace the debate. Regardless of how progressives feel about Afghanistan, there is at least broad agreement that U.S. needs to have some kind of strategy before significantly altering our footprint there. Yet what is clear from today's Karen DeYoung piece is that the next administration's plan for the region is at this point either unknown or unfinished. This makes it all the more important to have an honest exchange about options and limitations, opportunities and drawbacks, as well as overall U.S. objectives for the region - because these discussions can still have influence, now, before the policy is set. To paraphrase from future Secretary of State Clinton's remarks before SFRC yesterday, asking the right questions, and raising the red flags is exactly what progressives should be doing when it comes to Afghanistan. 2nd Recognize that policy and political dimensions are linked. It's true that progressives have benefitted from using Afghanistan as a political cudgel, but that's not to say that there hasn't been serious policy heft behind these arguments. Outfits like NSN, and the Center for American Progress have done a lot to bring attention to this Afghanistan's many wrinkles, while also speaking and writing about it in terms that people besides South Asia wonks can find useful. The truth is that the policy and political dimensions of these discussions are interwoven. Even the most committed members of the peace movement are going to have a tough time with the Afghanistan-Pakistan region's distinction as a nexus for terrorism and nuclear proliferation concerns, just as it would be irresponsible for war-planners to forge ahead blindly, without considering how Iraq war exhaustion and a global financial crisis will constrain any U.S. policy, be it sweeping or more modest. 3rd Move beyond the focus on troops. So far, most of the press focus on Afghanistan has been related to troop numbers, in part because of the announcement that as many as 30,000 troops will deploy to the country, and also because for the past year, Afghanistan's security has steadily deteriorated, making 2008 the most violent year on record. But it's also the case that troops and security are just facets of a broader of problem. Afghanistan suffers from lapsed reconstruction, a pitiful level of development, widespread corruption, and meddling from all its surrounding countries. As it stands, the opium trade alone - a shadow industry run by warlords, with ties to the insurgency - is enough to give the U.S. fits for some time to come. Progressives of all stripes have devoted time and attention to these issues - the trick will be translating that work into a conversation that reflects the whole range of obstacles contained within the Afghanistan problem. Talking about Afghanistan being a "good war" is a conservative frame, and unhelpful in many ways. However, it was an attempt to point to the fact that that like it or not, Obama's campaign promises have turned it into the foreign policy issue by which liberals will be judged. Getting it right, whether that means a responsible withdraw or a sustained engagement, carries immense ramifications for how progressives are perceived when it comes to foreign policy. This reality, cruel though it may be, necessitates strong participation from all parts of the progressive community. Funding short for Afghan demining effort
UPI The $500 million needed to complete an Afghanistan mine-clearing program is threatened by the world economic situation, a United Nations official says. Haider Reza, program director of the U.N. Mine Action Center for Afghanistan, or UNMACA, told reporters in Kabul Tuesday that the group's work so far, which has included finding and removing 82,000 anti-personnel mines in 2008, may not continue due to funding problems. "We are at a very critical point, and this country and people cannot afford to see a devastating situation where not much money will come," Reza said, adding that he would be tapping new donors, such as the Gulf states, in addition to "traditional" ones. UNMACA says Afghanistan is one of the most heavily mined countries in the world, and more than 4 million residents are living in mine-contaminated areas. The 82,000 anti-personnel mines and 900 anti-tank mines that were cleared in 2008 represents around 20 percent of all mines cleared from Afghanistan since 1989, Reza said. But, he said, the global economic crisis is making it less likely the goals of the Ottawa Convention on landmines, which calls for Afghanistan to be completely cleared of mines by 2013, will be met. No Pakistani will be handed over to India: Rabbani
Pakistan Link Inter-provincial coordination minister says PPP committed to repealing 17th Amendment No Pakistani will be handed over to India, Minister for Inter-Provincial Coordination Raza Rabbani said on Monday. "India has failed to provide proof of Pakistani involvement in the Mumbai attacks. Even if any citizen is proved guilty, he will be tried inside the country," Rabbani said. "Unlike Musharraf's regime, we will not hand over our citizens to any foreign country," he added. He said violation of the country's airspace was not acceptable and hoped that the new United States administration would review its policies. He emphasised that Pakistan wanted peace in the region but that should not be taken as its weakness. Separately, talking to BBC, Rabbani said the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) was committed to repealing the 17th Amendment and implementing the Charter of Democracy, APP reported. Rabbani, also leader of the House in the Senate, said, "We sent a draft constitutional package seeking input to all the political parties a few months ago." He said the PPP was ready to debate any bill presented by the opposition in parliament on repealing the 17th Amendment. The situation at the western and eastern borders of the country had changed the party's priorities, he said. However, he said, the PPP would carry out all positive steps to repeal the amendment. Afghanistan players nurture cricket World Cup hopes
Reuters place in the 2011 World Cup would be one way of giving the people of war-torn Afghanistan some joy and solace, says the country's cricket captain Nowroz Mangal. "Playing in the 2011 World Cup is a dream for us and we know what it would mean to our people. For us cricket is not just a sport, it is much more," he said. Despite their inexperience, Afghanistan have already won the International Cricket Council (ICC) world division league four and five tournaments in New Jersey and Tanzania last year. From January 24 they play in the division three tournament with five other teams in Buenos Aires where a top-two finish would give them a place in the 12-team World Cup qualifying round in South Africa in April. Four teams from the qualifying round will get places in the 2011 World Cup to be staged jointly by Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The violence and tough living conditions in the Muslim country have left little room for sporting activities but Mangal is optimistic that success in sport can make life easier for his people. "I know of the happiness of our people when our athlete won a medal in last year's Olympic Games," he said. Rohullah Nikpai was given a hero's welcome when he returned to Kabul from Beijing after winning Afghanistan's first Olympic medal, a bronze in the 58-kg Taekwondo event. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME Violence has surged in recent years in Afghanistan since the Taliban, ousted in a U.S.-led invasion in 2001, regrouped in 2005 to try to drive out the foreign troops and to topple the Western-backed government of President Hamid Karzai. Nearly 700 civilians were killed up to October last year in raids by foreign and Afghan forces, an Afghan rights body said last month, quoting a United Nations estimate. Afghanistan has been a main focus for the ICC in its regional development program for Asia since the Afghanis became affiliate members in 2001. The ICC has a projected development budget of $5.625 million (3.861 million pounds) for the continent in its funding plans for 2009-16. Mangal and his team are taking part in a two-week high-performance camp in the Pakistani city of Lahore as part of their journey towards qualifying for the World Cup, which features one-day matches. All rounder Mohammad Nabi said the players saw success in cricket as one way of helping Afghanistan back on the road to normal life. Nabi, 23, is one of the brightest Afghani cricket hopes and has played for the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and Pakistan Customs in six first-class matches. Belonging to Logar province, Nabi made his first-class debut at Arundel playing for the MCC against Sri Lanka A in 2007 and since then has seen his country make rapid strides in cricket. AMPLE TALENT Team coach Kabir Khan believes there is plenty of enthusiasm for cricket in Afghanistan, as well as ample talent, although because of the violence the sport has been restricted to a few areas such as Jalalabad, Khost, Nangahar and Logar. "Their cricket is still in its infancy stage. They don't have proper grounds and few club teams which is why their progress this far in the world division league is remarkable," he said. Matthew Kennedy, the ICC's global development manager, said that since joining the council Afghanistan had developed greatly as a cricketing nation and benefited from the investment provided. Khan, who played four tests and 10 one-day internationals for Pakistan in the 1990s, believes his team are good enough to play in the 2011 World Cup. "I am very hopeful about it. I want the players to be there as they really deserve to be. We are taking things as they come," he said. Khan has been working with the team since last year and believes Afghanistan's proximity to Pakistan, a cricket powerhouse, has helped the players. "Pakistan offers a good opportunity to these players to train and practise and play good level cricket," he said. (Editing by Clare Fallon) Civilian Injured in ISAF Tank Crash
Written by http://www.quqnoos.com/ Civilian victims recovering in hopsital ISAF troops based in Herat province injured two civilians in a traffic accident in Herat city. According to eyewitnesses, a tank driven by ISAF troops , hit a motorbike in the Bakarabad area of Herat city and caused two civilian casualties. Doctors in Herat hospital said the two victims are in good condition. Meanwhile, police caught a group of four kidnappers in Kabul city. According to MoI, police intervened and aprehended the kidnappers while they were trying to snatch a person from Kabul city. According to MoI, two pistols and a Mercedes Benz model car were seized from the kidnappers. Meanwhile ,according to security sources, police discovered three roadside mines in the Qala Majyan, Yahakhail district Road of Paktia province.
Forbes, NY Foreign intervention has a dismal record of success. Ann Marlowe's recent musings on Forbes.com are so out of touch with today's reality on the ground in Afghanistan, and with the current consensus on development, that I wondered if they deserved a direct response. As an Afghan, I was deeply offended by her high-minded recommendations for saving Afghans, as I am sure other readers were offended both in the West and in the East. Perhaps in her zeal to recommend ultimate solutions, Marlowe does not realize that she is referring to a now thoroughly discredited approach to development in the Third World. Marlowe suggests that "The culture of Afghanistan is dysfunctional, and that's why it became a failed state..." and that the "social engineering on a grand scale" is "wonderful good luck for the Afghans." The idea that after spending over $2.5 trillion on aid and social engineering since World War II, the West can create a "wonderful culture" in the Third World is delusional and suggests ignorance of the fact that foreign intervention has a dismal record of success. The problem isn't that "Afghan culture is dysfunctional," but rather that Afghan culture and society have been torn apart by hundreds of years of conflict, during which the country has been at the center of the Great Game played by powerful external forces. Such utter social breakdown is not unique to Afghanistan. Many African countries have been affected by it too. More recently, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent wars have brought such destruction and devastation that generations of children have grown up without knowing the simple joys of childhood, and where the very fabric of the Afghan character--tolerance, loyalty to others, forthrightness, generosity, a unique sense of hospitality, respect for women and aversion to fanatics--has been endangered. What Marlowe is missing is the very fact that culture is essential to development and that it needs to be protected in its own land and nurtured when in danger--not imposed from the outside. It is now well-recognized that development efforts only work if they are inclusive of human security, which itself embodies cultural and social norms. This "human development" approach--as elucidated by the Noble laureate Amartya Sen--has its focus on expanding human liberty and freedom and respect for the local population in defining their own needs and futures. In this sense, development is a basic human right based on a nation's deep cultural and social character. When disturbed either by conflict, or by the imported idealism Marlowe seems to suggest, these rights are violated and disaster ensues. Marlowe's views of Afghans are questionable, but suggestions like hers also have disastrous implications for the international community. A failure in Afghanistan will immediately call into question the validity and very existence of international institutions like NATO, the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Not understanding what Afghans want--security, education for their children, prosperity and the preservation of dignity--and instead advocating for "greatness" to come from the outside, has grave consequences for both Afghans and the community of nations engaged in this fight. Masood Aziz, a former diplomat, lives in Washington, D.C. Commandos smash Taliban bomb factory
Telegraph.co.uk - News A Taliban bomb-making factory has been shut down following an airborne assault by British commandos. Troops seized more than 130 detonators capable of setting off the types of lethal bomb that have killed dozens of coalition soldiers in the last year. Commanders have hailed the raid as a major success in thwarting the Taliban's increasingly sophisticated bombing campaign. In the last month 10 British soldiers and seven Canadians have been killed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in southern Afghanistan. In a joint operation with Canadian and Afghan forces, troops from 42 Commando Royal Marines swept onto an insurgent stronghold in a helicopter assault. In the early hours of the morning under cover of darkness, commandos from Kilo Company carried out the attack on the isolated Taliban base to the north of Kandahar City. The Marines swept through compounds and farm buildings as the Royal Canadian Regiment pushed in on foot and in armoured vehicles. Eight suspected bomb-makers were taken prisoner and a Canadian soldier, Tpr Brian Good, 42, of the Royal Canadian Regiment, was killed by a booby-trap bomb in the attack. No Taliban are thought to have died. But a search of more than 50 compounds and buildings led to seizure of a "huge haul" of lethal weapons and materials used to make IEDs. The troops found bags of shrapnel, from ball-bearings to nut and bolts - all used to maim and kill in "cunningly hidden" underground caches and tunnel, Royal Marine sources said. Six large tubs of explosives were also discovered along with 38 pressure plates used to detonate hidden mines. They also found 3,000 rounds of ammunition, AK47s, anti-personnel mines and 22 rocket-propelled grenades during the raid in the Khakrez and Shah Wali Khot districts that ended last Friday (Jan 9). The insurgents were also found hiding 20kg of opium with an estimated street value in Britain of £130,000. It is further proof that the Taliban, who are meant to be strict Muslims, are using the drug trade in Afghanistan to finance their attacks. The Americans estimate that the insurgents make $500 million (£330 million) a year from the trade which much of the cash passing to both Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders based in Pakistan. Lt Col Charlie Stickland, Royal Marines, Commanding Officer 42 Commando Group, said that Operation Shahi Tandar (Royal Storm) had "dealt a serious blow" to the insurgency. "This has substantially hindered the enemy's capability to launch attacks, particularly on the major transport routes through Kandahar Province," he said. "The operation was a true coalition success, with the agility of a helicopter-borne Royal Marines being used to surprise and unhinge the Taliban. "The men of 42 Commando Group now have a reputation across Southern Afghanistan for having a ferret-like nose for weapon caches." The number of IED attacks on both coalition troops has increased over the last year and scores of civilians have been killed and injured by the indiscriminate weapons. In recent months, coalition and Afghan operations have been increasingly successful in finding and dismantling IED building networks and facilities. Weapons Found: Detonators - over 130 Pressure plates - 38 Large tubs of explosive - 6 RPGs - 22 AK rifles and pistols - 10 Ammunition - 3,000 rounds Anti-personnel mines - 3 Grenades - 2 How US tries to limit civilian deaths in Afghanistan
The Christian Science Monitor Camp Keating, Afghanistan - Keating, Fritsche, Lowell, Bostick, Cherry-Beasley. The list goes on and on. Almost every coalition forces' camp in Afghanistan is named for a life cut short. Officers give briefings in front of plaques bearing the photographs of the dead. Camps are rechristened to memorialize their names. And flags are rarely seen fluttering at the top of their poles anymore. The situation is getting worse. In recent months, coalition deaths here have outnumbered those in Iraq, and attacks in 2008 were up by 28 percent over the previous year, says Col. Skip Davis, strategic adviser to Gen. David McKiernan, who commands the approximately 70,000 troops in Afghanistan. A record 294 NATO soldiers were killed in Afghanistan last year; 155 were Americans, according to icasualties.org. One of the reasons for the mounting number of coalition casualties, explain General McKiernan's staff, is the pressure not to hit civilians - coupled with the growing use of civilians either as proxy fighters or as human shields by the insurgents. "In my area of operations, those doing much of the shooting and lobbing of rockets at our outposts are not, by and large, the enemy you might think they are," notes Maj. Matt McCollum, operations officer at Bostick, a Forward Operating Base (FOB) that oversees much of the volatile northeastern Kunar Province, which borders Pakistan. Many are just local young men who have nothing to do and are being paid by the insurgents. "They do it for adventure, for the money, and just because they've been told it's cool to fight foreigners. It gets them street cred points." Furthermore, adds Brig. Gen. Richard Blanchette, spokesman for the coalition forces in Afghanistan, these young men carry out their attacks from roofs or windows of houses with other civilians inside. "If we engaged, we would hit them back, but the constant problem is differentiating who is who." Thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed since the start of the war in 2001, caught in the crossfire or in Taliban suicide attacks - but also, increasingly, victims of US airstrikes gone wrong, a fact that has precipitated a backlash against America and its partners. According to Human Rights Watch, 540 civilians lost their lives during the first six months of 2008 alone, a full 173 of them during coalition attacks - an outcome the coalition desperately wants to avoid. "On the one hand," says Lt. Col. James Markert, commander of Task Force Raider, operating out of Bostick, "you need to disincentivize the insurgents. You need to strike back and make it clear they will take casualties, too." But, on the other, he adds, you have to think about broader goals. "I am not going to kill someone every time I take fire. Sometimes it's OK not to shoot back," he stresses. The main alternative response involves redoubling efforts to "win" over villagers by offering them development projects and jobs, setting wages at about $170 a month, more than what the coalition believes is the going rate for attacking the bases. "We have more to offer than the Taliban, and we need to make it worth their while to come over to our side," says Major McCollum. But it's not easy to convince young men to put down their weapons in return for a day laborer's job. "These guys are thinking, 'I could work with a shovel for eight hours and make some money - or I could lob a rocket over the ridge for same.' The latter appeals. It's easier, more exciting work," admits McCollum. For coalition troops, meanwhile, showing restraint can be frustrating. "We came here to fight and engage an enemy, but we are learning ... we need to change our approach," says Lt. Col. Salvatore Petrovia, commander of Task Force Centaur, operating in Nuristan Province. When his base was targeted by enemy mortar fire on a recent night, Colonel Petrovia told his troops hold their fire, and instead set off early the next morning in a convoy of Humvees. "I elected not to fire, and instead investigate," he explains. On the days leading up to the attack, Petrovia's troops had been out in the nearby villages handing out backpacks and pens to school kids. After the mortar attack, they returned to ask for help. "We were hit last night, do you know anything about it?" Petrovia asked Afghan police officers stationed nearby. They were praying at the time, they reply, and heard nothing. "What about you guys?" he asks a group of schoolteachers, for whom the Americans are building a new building. Nothing. Petrovia and his soldiers slowly hike up steep goat paths into the sandstone and shale mountains to search for where the mortar was fired. The day drags on, the paths end, the and progress is slow. There is no one to talk to, no sign of a launch. "Employment is limited in these mountains. It's either the A Team, us, or the B Team, them," says Capt. Stephen Brewer, a physician's assistant from Texas. "And I guess a lot are working two jobs." Right now, he concludes, speaking slowly, it often seems Team A is losing players - but it will ultimately boil down, he believes, to which side can stick it out the longest. Afghanistan seen as 'highest priority'
Financial Times, UK The likely next US secretary of state cut a very different figure yesterday from the politician whose most memorable foreign policy comments of 2008 were her threat to "obliterate" Iran and her imagined memory of coming under gunfire in Bosnia. Speaking before an all-but- adoring Senate foreign relations committee, Hillary Clinton showed that she had much more time to research international affairs than when she was sparring on the Democratic campaign trail with Barack Obama, now president-elect. She promised a policy review on Afghanistan, a new approach to Iran, and emphasised engagement rather than confrontation with Arab authoritarian regimes. At a similar occasion four years ago, Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing focused on the current secretary of state's description of Cuba and Iran as "outposts of tyranny". Mrs Clinton put forward a much less ideological prospectus. She highlighted the new administration's goal of persuading Iran and Syria "to abandon their dangerous behaviour and become constructive regional actors" while strengthening relations with countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Signalling the emphasis on pragmatism, she added that the US's top international priorities were to keep the country and its allies secure, "promote economic growth and shared prosperity at home and abroad" and "strengthen America's position of global leadership". The secretary of state designate also proved happy to show off her knowledge of foreign policy from the Arctic to Latin America, as well as the acquisition tactics of Gazprom, the Russian natural gas supplier, and the intricacies of the US aid budget - much to the approval of the senators, who hold such issues among their favourite causes. What pressure Mrs Clinton did come under focused not on her own past or prospects, but the activities of her husband, former president Bill Clinton, who has agreed to greater transparency over donations to his charitable activities but has yet to satisfy the Senate. "Foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favour with the secretary of state," said Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the panel, even as he lauded Mrs Clinton as the symbol of a new era of US diplomacy. "The only certain way to eliminate this risk going forward is for the Clinton Foundation to forswear new foreign contributions when Senator Clinton becomes secretary of state." Mrs Clinton trod a careful course that kept away from making clear commitments in a committee session presided over by John Kerry, a senator who himself had hoped to become secretary of state. But she described the future policy review on Afghanistan as Mr Obama's "highest priority" and called the president-elect's stance on the country "more for more" - more US troops and more support by others. No articles featured today
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
