Moby Media Updates MMU Archives 2009 MMU: Resistance to U.S. Plan for Afghanistan, 16 January 2009
| MMU: Resistance to U.S. Plan for Afghanistan, 16 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
16 JANUARY 2009
Resistance to U.S. Plan for Afghanistan
Minister urges exporters to explore C Asian, Afghan markets
Policeman Sentenced to 16 Years in Prison Resistance to U.S. Plan for Afghanistan Troop Boost Complicated by Growing Taliban Influence, Anger Over Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths
Washington Post, United States The planned U.S. military and counterinsurgency drive in Afghanistan is meeting public and official resistance that could delay and possibly undermine a costly, belated effort that American officials here acknowledge has a limited window of time to succeed. The officials say they are optimistic that the planned addition of up to 30,000 troops, combined with a new strategy to support local governance and development aimed at weaning villagers away from Taliban influence, will show significant results within the year. They say improved cooperation from the army in neighboring Pakistan and better performance by the Afghan national army are bolstering this optimism. Yet they also acknowledge that they face an array of obstacles, including: widespread public hostility to international forces over bombing raids and civilian abuses; the growing influence of Taliban insurgents in areas where central authority and services are scarce; and controversy over plans to establish village defense groups. Officials are also worried about other issues: the upcoming Afghan presidential election and the revived hostility between Pakistan and India caused by a deadly terrorist rampage in Mumbai in November, could inject unpredictable tensions and competing priorities into the region just as a new administration in Washington tries to focus afresh on the anti-terrorist struggle here. Unlike the troop "surge" in Iraq, the doubling of the U.S. military presence on the ground in Afghanistan is not temporary, military officials said. Rather, troops will maintain a protracted presence focused on securing and holding villages currently dominated by the Taliban. One conundrum, U.S. military officials say, is that the expanded forces will have to come in with heavy firepower and aggressive military tactics -- likely to create more civilian casualties and public animosity -- in order to secure rural districts so they can bring in services, aid and governance aimed at winning over the local populace. "We don't want to give people false expectations. This is going to be a very tough year," said a U.S. military official here, speaking on the condition of anonymity. As American troops deploy throughout the south, where Taliban forces are strongest, he said, "you will see a very big spike" in armed clashes. Once areas are under control, "then we can bring in governance and development. But there will be some tough months of violence first." Many Afghans are furious over some actions taken by foreign troops, especially airstrikes that kill unarmed civilians and night raids where unidentified foreigners burst into homes, terrifying families. While the Taliban has swiftly capitalized on such incidents, U.S. and NATO officials tend to initially deny or minimize them, and then fail to publicize investigations or findings. President Hamid Karzai, the coalition troops' official host, has recently stoked this anger with a series of critical comments about foreign forces, saying they should deploy along the border with Pakistan instead of in Afghan villages. Critics say Karzai is pandering to popular emotion in hopes of winning reelection this year. In private, U.S. officials speak of their longtime ally with angry sarcasm. In public, they have begun to specifically contradict Karzai's claims of fresh civilian casualties, identifying slain Taliban insurgents by name and face. But other observers here say the president has a point. While global attention has focused on two airstrikes last year that killed numerous civilians, a report by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission found a "common pattern" in which "Afghan families experienced their family members killed or injured, their houses or other property destroyed, or their homes invaded at night without any perceived justification or legal authorization." Often, victims were afraid to report the incidents or were rebuffed by officials if they tried. The report concluded that the Afghan public's welcoming attitude toward coalition forces as guests and protectors has significantly shifted to resentment and fear. These findings were borne out in interviews this month with Kabul residents and with leaders from restive provinces, including Logar, Wardak and Kandahar, who said many Afghans are now as afraid of foreign and national government forces as they are of the Taliban. "When the foreign troops first came, every Afghan child said thumbs up, but now, nobody likes them. People have lost their trust," said Fazlullah Mojadeddi, 52, a legislator and former governor of Logar. "They don't want the Taliban back, but they are silent because nobody can guarantee their security. If one or two Taliban fighters come, the people don't inform the authorities for fear the foreigners will start killing innocent people." A second dilemma facing U.S. planners is whether to shore up a weak and corrupt central government or seek help in the volatile and murky arena of local and tribal politics. The regime in Kabul wields little authority in many rural areas, so U.S. military officials hope to reach out directly to traditional and tribal leaders. They plan to propose the creation of local defense committees similar to the "Awakening" groups used in Iraq. But the idea of raising local defense forces has aroused concern among foreign experts and Afghan citizens, who warn it could stir up old ethnic and tribal hostilities; re-arm a factionalized populace the United Nations just spent millions to disarm; and raise the specter of previous experiments by the pro-Soviet government of the 1980s and other regimes that led to fratricidal violence. "Creating local militias would be a disaster," said Shukria Barakzai, a member of parliament from Kabul. "Who can guarantee they won't go to war? It would undermine central authority, civilian life would be under threat and nobody would be able to control them." U.S. military officials here assert that the project is Afghan-led, but various Afghan agencies have issued conflicting statements about it, and their plans to announce or even name the program have been delayed for weeks. Efforts this month to interview senior Afghan officials involved in the initiative were not successful, while spokesmen for Karzai said he was unavailable. Some officials in Taliban-plagued zones said they had been persuaded that, under the right leadership, local fighters could be a great asset because of their intimate knowledge of the country's rugged terrain and labyrinthine tribal relations. But others were harsh in their criticism of the U.S. and Afghan security plans. One skeptic is Roshanak Wardak, a medical doctor and legislator from Wardak province, less than an hour's drive south of Kabul. Overrun by Taliban fighters in the past year, the province has been targeted for an early deployment of the incoming U.S. troops and for a pilot project in the so-called community guard program. Wardak said many of her constituents oppose both plans. "In my province, people are definitely suffering from the Taliban, but they are also very upset about the American troops coming in or trying to start militias," she said. "The Russians made those self-defense groups and set brother against brother. Now, everyone has a cousin or a nephew who has joined the Taliban. The elders are ready to let their sons protect their schools or markets, but they will never give them to fight the Taliban." The indigenous ties of the insurgents present perhaps the most difficult challenge to the new U.S. strategy. Where Westerners tend to view the Taliban as a source of cruelty and terror, for many Afghans they are simply another option in a fluid power struggle. Even former Afghan soldiers and police officers have joined the insurgents, who pay cash wages, share their religion and traditions and are often from the same tribe. In parts of Logar, Mojadeddi, the legislator, said people had turned to both Taliban and tribal leaders for justice and to resolve disputes, as government offices are good for little except "providing passports and ID cards." He said he opposes the Taliban but believes its leaders would negotiate under the right conditions. "As a fellow Logari, I can talk to the Taliban. But I can't tell them to stop destroying schools and clinics and join the government, because I can't guarantee their safety," he said. American military officials here said they are keenly aware that they have a serious image problem and limited time to prove that bringing in more troops and weapons will not destroy the Afghan countryside to save it. They said killing enemy fighters alone will solve nothing. As soon as key areas are secured, they said they will bring in a variety of civilian experts -- from veterinarians to judges -- to address local needs. "We have made errors in the past, but now we are getting it right," a U.S. military official said. "We have been under-resourced, but now we have a good campaign plan and the resources to execute it. This will be the first time we will have the capacity to hold key areas, protect the population and start bringing in projects. That's what will make all the difference." Minister urges exporters to explore C Asian, Afghan markets
Daily Times The Federal Minister for Commerce, Makhdoom Amin Fahim has asked the exporters to explore the markets in Central Asia and Afghanistan for increasing exports. A delegation of Islamabad Chamber of Commerce and Industries (ICCI) called on the Federal Minister for Commerce in his office on Thursday. Secretary Commerce, Qamar Zaman Chaudhri, DG Trade Organisation and officers of the Ministry were also present on the occasion. In his welcome address the Federal Minister asked the delegation that it was their responsibility to play their part in increasing country's exports. Mian Shoukat Masood, President ICCI, hoped that the current government would solve all their problems. However, he showed concern over prolonged power and gas shortages, which was a big hurdle in promotion of exports. Because of un-scheduled power outrages, the exports orders are not met. "The high mark-up rate by the banks is causing financial crunch in production sector," he added. In the industrial sector, new ideas regarding offering loans may be introduced to encourage the investors, he recommended. The Federal Minister pointed that the future of the country's exports is bright if we explore the markets in Central Asia and Afghanistan. staff report Policeman Sentenced to 16 Years in Prison
Written by http://www.quqnoos.com/ Policeman Charged with Rape and Robbery A court in Kabul sentenced a member of the security forces to 16 years in prison for rape and robbery charges. The man, who was a police officer in the northern province of Sar-i-Pul, was arrested on charges of having raped a 10 year old girl and her mother last year. According to the courts, the assault in question was a case of gang rape. Allegedly the sentenced policeman violated the victims alongside four other male perpetrators. The girl's family says the policeman and four others broke into their house at midnight. After raping the girl and her mother, the assailants reportedly stole jewellery and cash from the house. The family says the punishment is not enough to fit the crime. The accused has denied the charges. The Afghanistan Human Rights Organization (AHRO) has also urged more severe punishment. According to AHRO, sexual abuses have increased in the country recently, especially in the Northern provinces. Qaeda feels unsafe near Pakistan border: CIA chief
Reuters Al Qaeda leaders no longer feel safe in Afghan-Pakistan border areas, where they face heavy U.S. and Pakistani pressure and their local welcome has worn out, CIA chief Michael Hayden said on Thursday. Hayden's comments to reporters as he prepares to leave his post underscored a growing Bush administration confidence that al Qaeda's leadership has been crippled, partly by a military campaign that Washington does not acknowledge. Hayden also said in the wide-ranging discussion he believed Iran was nearing a decision on whether to proceed with development of a nuclear weapon. He stood by his defense of CIA waterboarding and said that regardless of whether the agency's harsh interrogations will be judged worth the widespread condemnation, they worked. "The agency did none of this out of enthusiasm. It did it out of duty, and it did it with the best legal advice," he said. "I am convinced that the program got the maximum amount of information. I just can't conceive of any other way." Hayden said a disappointment of his 2 1/2-year term was that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was still at large. But he said bin Laden and top lieutenants were no longer secure in the Pakistan mountain hide-outs believed to be hiding them. "The great danger was that -- I'm going to use a little euphemism here -- the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan was a safe haven for al Qaeda," Hayden said. "It is my belief that the senior leadership of al Qaeda today believes that it is neither safe, nor a haven. That is a big deal in defending the United States." An audio message from bin Laden this week may have been intended in part simply to show he was still alive, Hayden suggested. "What we and our Pakistani allies have been able to do have changed the equation there," he said. U.S. forces in Afghanistan launched about 30 missile strikes in Pakistan in 2008, according to a Reuters tally. The U.S. government does not acknowledge the strikes, but eight senior al Qaeda leaders have died in the region since July, a U.S. counterterrorism official said this week. Pakistan has denounced the raids as violations of territorial sovereignty. But Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani said in Washington that Pakistani military cooperation had begun reducing militant infiltration into Afghanistan. "Instead, now there is a reverse infiltration of Taliban and jihadis from Afghanistan coming into Pakistan to try and protect bases," in tribal areas," Haqqani told a think tank in Washington. Residents in the border areas have also begun to make al Qaeda feel unwelcome, Hayden said. 'HE'S HIDING' Hayden said it was likely that bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, would be caught before the al Qaeda leader, because Zawahri was more active and more involved in operations. I asked our counterterrorism chief, how come we haven't found him (bin Laden). He said, 'Because he's hiding.' And there's a lot of wisdom in that. He's spending a great deal of energy protecting himself," Hayden said. Hayden's CIA term began in 2006 and has largely been defined by controversy over the agency's programs to capture and question terrorism suspects. That includes its use of the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding. The waterboarding was limited to three high-value terrorism suspects and discontinued in 2003, Hayden has said. President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, told a Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday he considered waterboarding to be torture. Obama has signaled he did not intend to prosecute agents over the CIA programs, a view Hayden said he welcomed. Hayden said he briefed Obama last month on the CIA's covert operations, including its programs for detention and interrogation. He called Obama an "avid customer" of intelligence. Iran likely will decide soon whether to press ahead with a suspended nuclear weapons program, Hayden said. Its stocks of low-enriched uranium are rising, but the costs of maintaining the enrichment program in the face of international isolation and sanctions would soon force a reckoning, he said. He counted as a major success the CIA's identification of a suspected covert Syrian nuclear plant. The plant was destroyed by an Israeli air strike in 2007. Hayden said the CIA would abide by any government limits on its methods. But he said it worked best when it bumped right up against the limits -- and indicated that could be his legacy. "When the history of this agency for this period is written, the last thing you are going to say is that it was risk-averse -- trust me," he said. (Additional reporting by Paul Eckert; Editing by Peter Cooney) Obama to act quickly on Afghanistan
Expressbuzz.com - Opinion Soon after Barack Obama is sworn in as President, he will face a critical decision about the future of the war in Afghanistan: what to do with thousands of new US troops that will flow into the country over the course of the year. Within the Pentagon, a vigorous debate has emerged about what the top priority should be for those forces. Some defense officials argue that the bulk of the build-up should be arrayed along the border with Pakistan, focusing on the fight with militants who move easily back and forth across the rugged terrain. But others - including General David Petraeus who now commands those troops - want to see the US take a page out of the Iraq playbook, making Afghan cities and towns their top priority to help protect the civilian population from Taliban extremists and other militants. The strategic choices made in Obama's first months could determine whether US forces are able to curb the rising number of attacks there. The new administration is planning an in-depth Afghanistan review as soon as it takes office. Obama has made clear his intention to focus on Afghan security, and his advisers insist they are open to hearing from advocates of both strategies. But the new commander in chief is going to have to act fast to improve the situation in Afghanistan, military experts say. The Afghan public is growing more frustrated in the face of rising violence. And growing numbers of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan is going badly. Officers agree that any strategy will have to include a mix of population security and border control, in addition to training the Afghan police and army. But the question for the new administration will be: What should receive top priority? There are about 32,000 US troops in Afghanistan, with another 20,000 scheduled to deploy in 2009. Current plans of the US command in Afghanistan call for sending some of the additional forces to the border, but to use the majority of the new troops to safeguard villages and cities. "There is a primacy on securing the population," said Army Major General Michael S Tucker, the director of operations for US Forces-Afghanistan. "The approach is to reach out to the population, get into the villages, and separate them from the insurgency." But behind the scenes, not everyone agrees. Experts with opposing views spoke on condition of anonymity, citing their lack of authority to publicly address an internal debate. Advisers to the President-elect also spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama does not take office until January 20. Some of those sceptical of emphasising a secure population note that even after this year's build-up, there will be far fewer US and local forces in Afghanistan than there were in Iraq during the 2007 troop surge to cover a much larger territory. Afghanistan's population is more rural and dispersed than Iraq's, making local security improvements more challenging and crucial. Afghan government officials have warned US officials that the Soviet military effort foundered precisely because they were not able to control the border - allowing militants to escape to sanctuaries in Pakistan. Top Afghan general dies in helicopter crash
Los Angeles Times, CA Twelve soldiers are also killed. Afghan officials blame the weather, but Taliban insurgents say they brought down the chopper. A helicopter carrying one of Afghanistan's most senior army generals and 12 soldiers crashed in bad weather Thursday, killing all aboard, the Afghan military said. Taliban insurgents claimed to have downed the Russian-made chopper in western Afghanistan, but the military said in a statement that poor visibility caused the craft to slam into a jagged mountainside. Much of Afghanistan is enveloped in rain and snow, which has been hampering military transport as well as civilian flights. The nation's military relies largely on a poorly maintained fleet of aging Russian aircraft. It was one of the largest losses of life in a single incident that the Afghan army has suffered in recent years. The general who died, Fazl Ahmad Sayar, was one of four regional commanders. He was in charge of army operations in the west of the country. The Mi-17 helicopter went down in the rugged Adraskan district of Herat province, the Afghan Defense Ministry said in a statement. All the bodies were recovered, it said. The Afghan military said there were no insurgents operating in the area, but Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi said militants had shot down the chopper. Also Thursday, British authorities announced the deaths of two servicemen a day earlier in southern Afghanistan. The two, a soldier and a Royal Marine, were killed in an explosion in Helmand province, one of the main centers of the insurgency. Many of the approximately 30,000 U.S. troops arriving in Afghanistan in coming months will be deployed in the south, once the Taliban movement's home base. With violence at its highest level since the war began seven years ago, the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said it is willing to talk with Taliban fighters who agree to lay down their arms. Saudi Arabia has attempted in recent months to broker indirect talks between the government and Taliban-connected elements. In an apparent continuation of that effort, the head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Mugrin bin Abdul-Aziz, met with Karzai and other senior officials Thursday, the government said. This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Special correspondent M. Karim Faiez contributed to this report. Pentagon readies 16-month Iraq withdrawal option for Obama
AFP The Pentagon is readying Iraq options for President-elect Barack Obama, including an accelerated drawdown of US forces in 16 months, as promised during his campaign, a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday. Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Obama had not asked for the plans, but the US military nevertheless would be ready to present him with a full range of options and the risks associated with each of them. "We want to be prepared to show the incoming president a variety of options, 16-month drawdown being one of those options," he said. "Of course, no option will be presented without relaying the risk that is taken on in conjunction with that option," he said. The top US commander in Iraq, General Raymond Odierno, has pressed to keep a large force in Iraq at least through this year because of fears that security gains there could still unravel. But Morrell said requirements in Afghanistan, where the pace of a US military buildup hinges on a troop drawdown in Iraq, will be factored into the planning. "Our military planners do not live in a vacuum. They are well aware that the president-elect had campaigned on withdrawing combat forces from Iraq on a 16-month timeline," he said. "So it would only be prudent of them to draw plans that reflected that option. But that is one of the options that they are drawing up plans for," he said. There are currently 142,000 US troops in Iraq and 33,000 in Afghanistan, which Obama has singled out as the main front in the war on terrorism. Plans call for deploying about 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan over the next year to 18 months to try to stem an insurgency that has gained strength and spread into neighboring Pakistan. During his run for the presidency, Obama promised to bring all US troops out of Iraq in 16 months. But he has said would listen to the advice of the commanders, and has narrowed the drawdown pledge to "combat troops." In asking Gates to stay on as defense secretary on December 1, Obama said he would be giving the military a new mission of "responsibly ending the war." A US-Iraq security agreement calls for the withdrawal of all US forces by the end of 2011. Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with Obama in Chicago in mid December and relayed troop withdrawal options raised by Odierno and his number two, General Lloyd Austin. Obama met with his national security team, including Gates and Mullen, last week. "The secretary and the chairman's conversations with the president-elect and his team have been broad in nature so far," Morrell said. "They will not begin to present him with specific options on the way ahead in Iraq or in Afghanistan until he is commander-in-chief, but they are prepared to give him a full range of options as soon as he is ready." Obama Team Should Reappraise Afghan War Efforts Before Doubling Troop Levels
Huffington Post, NY The front-page story in the Washington Post Tuesday reports the intention of Barack Obama to commit a stunningly irrational blunder: to escalate dramatically the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan even though he has no clear proposal from the Pentagon on what is to be accomplished with the new "surge" in troops. The president-elect "intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan," according to the Post. But it adds that Obama's national security team sees the troop increase as doing nothing more than "help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort and develop a comprehensive new strategy...." Why isn't the Obama team waiting until it has been able to "reappraise" the war effort and figure out what, if anything, would actually work before doubling the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan? Why doesn't Obama simply tell the Pentagon, "I'm not approving a major military escalation until you give me a plan that makes sense"? The strange reversal of logic that has put the troop escalation in front of the war strategy horse should be a warning signal to Obama that the U.S. military is not on the right track in Afghanistan and doesn't know how to get there. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and the military leadership have already had months to develop a new strategy. According to the Post, however, they haven't even been able to agree on the nature of the war. The military is "looking for Obama to resolve critical internal debates, including the relative merits of conducting conventional combat vs. targeted guerrilla war", the Post reported. The strategy which has been pursued by the U.S. military under Gen. David D. McKiernan since 2005, with notable lack of success, has considered attacking the Taliban to be the main military objective, according to military critics. An alternative proposal presented to Gates by military officers who served in Afghanistan before the Taliban reemerged as de facto government in large parts of the country, would shift the objective from killing "Taliban" to protecting the people. But that would involve admitting that the existing strategy is wrong, and it has obviously encountered strong resistance from McKiernan and his staff in the field. This is not an isolated episode of the military refusing to learning from its past mistakes. In fact it is inherent in the nature of U.S. military institutions. Col. John A. Nagl, the primary author of the U.S. Army's new counterinsurgency manual, showed in his book, Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife published in 2002, that the U.S. army refused to learn any lessons from its failure in Vietnam and instead created a comfortable narrative about how it could have won the war if only the civilians had allowed it to do so. He found that the army lacked the "organizational self-awareness" necessary to "change organizational culture". That's why sending more troops to Afghanistan can only have one result: the military will end up simply doing more of what it knows how to do. And because the U.S. army is not capable of learning, it will continue to generate more Afghan resistance to the U.S. occupation. Last October, when I asked Gen. David Barno, the commander in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2004, whether the number of U.S airstrikes - and thus innocent civilians killed -- wouldn't inevitably increase with an increase in U.S. troops, he agreed. "When you've got that tool in your tool box," he said, "there is a high risk that you will use it even though it puts your strategic interest at risk." Nagl shows how the bureaucratic resistance to change within the command structure made adaptation to reality impossible. He notes that the commander is screened from the truth by his subordinates and quotes the man responsible for "pacification" in Vietnam, Robert Komer, as calling that war a "tragedy of bureaucratic inability to adapt to unconventional situations." In a recent speech to the Atlantic Council, Gen. McKiernan revealed just how out of touch he is with Afghan realities. He told of meeting the governor of a district in Ghazni Province, who he asked whether things are "better than they were two years ago". He quoted the district governor as saying, "Two years ago transiting across my district was [sic] about 1,000 Taliban. Today there's still Taliban but it's about 200, and people are taking their produce to the market. Children are going to school." McKiernan concluded , '[I]f you have that kind of human capital to potentially work with, the glass is half-full," and "Afghanistan will turn out much better than we found it if the will of the international community remains strong". But the intrepid journalist Nir Rosen, who traveled through Afghanistan with the Taliban last year, reported in Rolling Stone in October, that Ghazni has fallen to the Taliban. Foreigners who venture to Ghazni often wind up kidnapped or killed. In defiance of the central government, the Taliban governor in the province issues separate ID cards and passports for the Taliban regime, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Farmers increasingly turn to the Taliban, not the American-backed authorities, for adjudication of land disputes. McKiernan was apparently clueless about what was really going on in Ghazni province, just 100 miles south of Kabul. This cluelessness is not because of McKiernan personally. It is the way the system works. It helps explain why there is no agreement on strategy accompanying the military demand for more troops in Afghanistan, and it is why the Obama administration will be engulfed in an endless, failing war in Afghanistan unless he says no to escalation now. Afghanistan Barack Obama Wash Post The front-page story in the Washington Post Tuesday reports the intention of Barack Obama to commit a stunningly irrational blunder: to escalate dramatically the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan eve... The front-page story in the Washington Post Tuesday reports the intention of Barack Obama to commit a stunningly irrational blunder: to escalate dramatically the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan eve... Clinton signals new line on Kabul
FT.com The presidential palace in Kabul is viewing Barack Obama's move into the White House next week with great unease. Hillary Clinton, who is set to become US secretary of state in a matter of days, this week labelled Afghanistan a "narco-state" whose government was "plagued by limited capacity and widespread corruption". Setting out the tough approach of the incoming administration, Mrs Clinton said the US would "tie aid to better performance by the Afghan national government, including anti-corruption initiatives and efforts to extend the rule of law across the country". Since 2001, the US government has provided more than $32bn (25bn, £22bn) to Afghanistan and the Obama administration wants to increase non-military aid further, as well as raise US troop numbers. But Mrs Clinton's comments are only the latest sign that relations with the new US administration are likely to be stormy, contrasting with the friendly ties between George W. Bush and Hamid Karzai ever since the Afghan president took office in 2002. A visit by Joe Biden caused disquiet last year when the now vice-president-elect became so irritated with Mr Karzai that he abruptly ended the meeting. Nor do Mr Obama's own encounters with Mr Karzai appear to have been wholly congenial. In her testimony, Mrs Clinton remarked that "Afghanistan needs a government more able to take care of its people's needs - something the president-elect has communicated to President Karzai." Richard Holbrooke, the former US ambassador to the United Nations who is expected to become a special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said of the Afghan government in May: "It is weak; it is corrupt; it has a very thin leadership veneer; it is internally divided; it has never arrested any major drug lords." He said the question of whether to support Mr Karzai for a third term in elections this year would be "one of the half- dozen most important tactical decisions the next [US] president will make". US diplomats say they support the democratic process, and not any one candidate. But a long-serving US official in Afghanistan predicted "everything will change on January 21", when a new administration ditched "the blind support we saw during the Bush years". Others contended that the incumbent Mr Karzai was still the most likely candidate to win the presidential poll, if security concerns permitted the vote to go ahead. French Muslims reject Afghanistan mission
Press TV Muslim soldiers in the French military have refused to serve in Afghanistan, saying they have been forbidden from fighting in the country. "The refusal to be assigned to a mission for religious reasons is a micro-phenomenon concerning fewer than five cases per year," French Colonel Benoit Royal told AFP on Thursday. His remarks were confirmation of an earlier report that some Muslims refuse to be stationed in Afghanistan because their religion forbids them from fighting fellow Muslims. According to Royal, those troops who refuse to be deployed to Afghanistan will face disciplinary action and are in most cases discharged from the army. Another army spokesman said the refusal of some soldiers shows a "lack of understanding of their commitment which is to bear arms for France to defend its interests and values at all times and everywhere." France has 2,600 troops serving in Afghanistan as part of the NATO mission in the country. At least 25 French soldiers have been killed in the mission. Earlier in August, 2008, ten French were killed and 21 wounded in a Taliban ambush 40 miles east of the Afghan capital, Kabul. Four of the soldiers were executed after being captured or "kidnapped" during a two-day running battle with more than 100 insurgents. The deaths caused an uproar in France. President Nicolas Sarkozy has taken French foreign policy in a more pro-Washington direction than his predecessor Jacques Chirac and has stressed that France is committed to the military and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. European nations have been under increasing pressure from Washington to contribute more combat troops to contain the al-Qaeda and Taliban linked insurgency in the war-torn country. Despite the presence of more than 70,000 US-led foreign troops in the country, insurgent attacks are at a record high.
Written by http://www.quqnoos.com/ ISAF condemns the killing of the local construction contractor A local-national contractor who worked on road construction projects for ISAF forces was found murdered three days after being kidnapped by insurgents in Kapisa Province last week. The local-national contractor was kidnapped on Jan. 6. During his captivity, he was shot three times and killed. Afghan police found the contractor's body hanging from a tree near Feroza, Jan. 9. The contractor was part of a road construction project in the Afghanya valley of Kapisa, in Regional Command East. ISAF Spokesperson, Brigadier General Richard Blanchette, condemned the kidnapping and murder of the local contractor and said "this local national man was merely trying to do his job and help build his country and, in doing so, was mercilessly killed by insurgents." Our view on the 43rd president: Economic crisis, war in Iraq overshadow Bush's successes
USA Today As he says farewell, president faces harsh glare of history. When he left office in 1953, Harry Truman hardly looked like a great president. His poll ratings had dipped as low as 22%. The nation was mired in a war in Korea it had not bargained for. And, to many voters, Truman paled in comparison with his predecessor, Franklin Roosevelt, and his incoming successor, Dwight Eisenhower. (Bush: Saying farewell to fellow Americans on Thursday night/ Jim Watson, AFP/Getty Images) The fact that Truman is now highly regarded should give pause to anyone assessing a president at the end of his term. Perhaps future generations will be kinder to George W. Bush than today's harsh critics. Perhaps. But, at least from today's vantage point, it is hard to see Bush making a Truman-like comeback in popular standing. The president, in a series of exit interviews and again in , has been laying the groundwork for a kinder historical assessment than today's 34% approval rating would suggest. Since 9/11, he noted, America has not been attacked again, something few would have predicted at the time. Though Osama bin Laden remains at large, other key al-Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured. Intelligence has been strengthened. Bush introduced more accountability into public schools, fought AIDS in Africa, expanded trade and added a prescription-drug benefit to Medicare. These are significant achievements, for which he deserves credit. Even so, history judges presidents primarily on large issues of peace and prosperity, and, on those, Bush leaves a dubious legacy: • The president bestows on his successor an economy in shambles, with 2.5 million jobs shed last year and many more likely to come, and a government $5 trillion deeper in debt than when he took office. • Presidents, of course, tend to get more credit than they deserve in good economic times and more blame than they deserve in bad ones. This, however, is no ordinary business-cycle recession. Bush's deregulatory approach to business blinded his administration to the enormous risks posed by the housing bubble and securitization of subprime mortgages. Wall Street's reckless lending practices and get-rich-quick attitudes didn't start with Bush, but his administration certainly abetted them. Bush's banking regulators acted more like lobbyists embedded in the federal government than the watchdogs they were supposed to be. His Securities and Exchange Commission recklessly opted in 2004 to increase the amount of debt that major investment banks could hold on their books. For no good reason - other than a philosophical aversion to taxes and reluctance to call for sacrifice - Bush squandered the budget surplus he inherited and almost doubled the national debt at a time of relatively robust economic growth. In so doing, he stimulated the economy when it was not needed, making it harder to do so now when it is. His fleeting and politicized attempts to address looming cost crises in Social Security and health care were fruitless, and both problems deepened. To his credit, Bush, a self-described "market-oriented guy," has changed his tune since the banking crisis unfolded last year. He now favors a pragmatic view directed toward doing whatever's necessary to prevent another Depression. If his administration's $700 billion program to stabilize the financial system helps pull the economy quickly out of its nose dive, history will credit Bush with a willingness to make tough but necessary decisions in the face of crisis. If this recession deepens and lingers, though, his name is more likely to be linked with Herbert Hoover's than with Harry Truman's. On the question of peace, Bush bequeaths two incomplete conflicts to his successor. One of them, in Afghanistan, originated as a necessary response to the terrorist attacks in 2001. The other, in Iraq, is a misguided war of choice that undermined the first. The response to 9/11 started with great promise. Bush's speech to Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, in which he spelled out a thoughtful five-pronged strategy to combat terrorism and urged Americans not to blame all Muslims, was among his finest hours. The subsequent military operation to depose the radical Taliban, which harbored al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, was swift and successful. The unfinished campaign in Afghanistan, however, was quickly overshadowed by Bush's roll-the-dice gamble to invade Iraq, sold on the premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat. Not only did that premise prove false, but the invasion also morphed into a long, bloody insurgency that has claimed more than 4,000 American lives, cost more than half a trillion dollars and sapped U.S. standing in the world. Here too, though, the final verdict is still to come. Bush's brave decision to surge more troops into Iraq in early 2007, in the face of wide disapproval, might yet salvage a stable nation out of disaster. Bush's foreign and domestic policy failures did not derive from a lack of decency or good intentions, and he is smarter than his mangled syntax and the late-night comics have made him seem. But his combination of certitude and incuriosity hurt more often than it helped. He and key aides, particularly Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, didn't look back with sober reflection at decisions made in the fervid aftermath of the 9/11 and anthrax attacks. As a result, avoidable excesses, such as those at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and the one at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were not reined in. Bush has often spoken about not leaving difficult problems to his successors, yet Barack Obama inherits a plate stacked higher with them than any president since FDR. To review some of Bush's early campaign themes - limited government, a humble foreign policy, a different tone in Washington - is to see a president who lost his bearings. For these and other reasons, Bush's record, at least for now, does not lend itself easily to a positive assessment. History isn't likely to regard him as the worst president ever, as some liberal historians have declared. But with only a slight reservation about not knowing what the future will bring, as he departs it is hard to place him anywhere but in the lower tier. Flournoy on Afghanistan Strategy
The Washington Independent, DC Early in today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on President-elect Obama's Pentagon subcabinet nominees, Michele Flournoy, the undersecretary for policy-designate, pledged her support for the upcoming troop increase in Afghanistan. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) asked Flournoy to articulate a military strategy for Afghanistan, particularly "what the end point is [at which] we see the mission completed." Flournoy didn't hestitate to say she didn't have more than an overall goal. "That is the question, Senator. Our objective in Afghanistan has got to be to create a more stable and secure environment that allows longer-term stabilization to prevent Afghanistan from returning to a safe haven for terrorism. Job number one, or one of the top jobs of this administration is going to be crafting the strategy you're asking for, not just the military piece but across the U.S. government as a whole, working with our NATO alies, working with the Afghan government, working with international donors all elements of national power [should be] brought] to bear. I can't tell you what that strategy is yet. But both President-elect Obama, and Secretary Gates are committed to developing that as an early priority going forward." Webb, a Marine veteran of Vietnam and Navy secretary under President Reagan, remarked that, "I hope the process ends up with a clearly articulated endpoint. If you cannot clearly articulate when the commitment will be ended, then we tend to move in an ad-hoc way, staying in different places and not necessarily resolving problems in a way that fits our national interest." In Fog of Gaza War, Jihadist Groups in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan Take Offensive
Middle East Media Research Institute, DC At a time when international attention is focused on the Israeli offensive in Gaza, Islamic militant groups in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indian Kashmir have stepped up their activities. In Pakistan's tribal region, Taliban militants have strengthened their control; Taliban-supported Sunni militants have wiped out - as noted by a Pakistani newspaper - pockets of Shi'a Muslims; and not a day goes by without an innocent man being dubbed a "U.S. spy" and being decapitated by the Taliban. In Afghanistan, Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants based in the mountains of Tora Bora, where Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden escaped the wrath of the U.S. military, have issued a message to the incoming U.S. President Barack Obama demanding that he withdraw U.S. troops and threatening to blow up Washington, D.C. At the same time, U.S. and NATO casualties are on the rise. In Indian Kashmir, the Pakistan-backed Islamic militants sustained a days-long armed standoff with Indian troops, much like the standoff during the November 26-29 Mumbai terror attacks, and then escaped. Also, while the Pakistani government refuses to admit the role of Pakistan-based militants in the Mumbai terror attacks, there are new terror threats to hotels in India. This report will examine these rising jihadist threats in detail. Pakistan's Tribal Region In the Hangu district of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP), clashes between Taliban-backed Sunni groups and Shi'a Muslims have led to the killings of nearly 40 people, in a new wave of violence that began January 9, 2009. [1] Approximately 60% of Shi'a Muslims have been forced to abandon their homes and emigrate from the district. In Hangu and the neighboring tribal district of Kurram Agency, the violence against Shi'a Muslims has reached the magnitude of ethnic cleansing. In a January 13, 2009 editorial, the Pakistani daily The News observed: "Tribes, broken up into Sunnis and Shi'as, have once more been battling each other. Tensions seem to have risen with the advent of the Muslim month of mourning - Muharram - an occasion that has repeatedly triggered violence over the past decade. This is of course immensely sad, given the sanctity of the month for Muslims of all sects. "So far, tribal elders attempting to mediate between the fighting tribes have failed to restore peace in Hangu. Even if they do achieve a breakthrough, one fears that it will be short-lived. This, after all, is what has happened each time in the past... The sectarian [Shi'a-Sunni] violence in areas such as Parachinar in the Kurram Agency has resulted in what amounts to brutal ethnic cleansing. It is said that large pockets of Shi'as have been entirely wiped out, or else have fled, fearful of death. It is unfortunate that this should still happen, in a day and age that is described as 'civilized."' [2] It should also be noted that in almost all Pakistan towns and cities, a number of religious, political and leftist organizations protest on a daily basis, by the hundreds of thousands, against the Israeli offensive in Gaza - but that these groups are silent over the killings of Shi'a Muslims in the Hangu district. An examination of www.jasarat.com, the website of the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jasarat, a Jamaat-e-Islami daily, since the beginning of the Israeli offensive in Gaza on December 26, 2008, reveals that from December 28, 2008 until now not a day has passed without the Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan protesting or issuing a statement against the Israeli attacks. [3] Other than the Jamaat-e-Islami, groups that have protested prominently against the Gaza attacks include: Imamia Students Organization, a Shi'a group; Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan; Jafria Students Organization; Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam; Islami Jamiat Tulaba; Pakistani Awami Tehreek; civil society groups led by actress Samina Pirzada; Pakistan Workers' Federation, and others. On the other hand, the violence against Shi'a Muslims in the Hangu district shows no sign of ending. On January 12, 2009, the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Mashriq reported that the "non-local Taliban" in the Hangu district have rebuffed a peace deal agreed upon by the elders of the Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. [4] The failure of the Pakistani Army during the past year to apprehend or kill a single influential commander of the Taliban has probably emboldened the Taliban's position. In the Swat district of the North West Frontier Province, the Taliban militants led by Maulana Fazlullah have established near-total control. Maulana Fazlullah is the son-in-law of Islamist leader Sufi Muhammad, who was released by the Pakistani government last year under a deal. According to a report in the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jasarat, Taliban commander Maulana Fazlullah has established control over 80 percent of the Swat district, running his own government with its own Shari'a courts, FM radio stations, policing militias, and so on. Roznama Jasarat added: "There is no effective [Pakistani] state in Swat. No damage was done to Fazlullah group [of the Taliban] and its leadership during the military operation." [5] In the Swat district, the Taliban have ordered total ban on female education from January 15, 2009; women have been banned from visiting government offices that issue ID cards to Pakistani citizens; local politicians are running for cover from the Taliban militants; and policemen have been placing ads in local newspapers, announcing that they have quit their government jobs. During the past year, over 700 policemen have resigned their jobs in this manner. [6] The University of Malakand, based in the Swat region, has ordered female students to be veiled on campus. [7] The Taliban have stepped up the killing of anybody who could potentially oppose them. The Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Mashriq reported on January 6. 2009, that during just one week, 39 bodies were recovered in the Swat district of people killed by the Taliban on different charges, among them the allegations of spying for the U.S. [8] In the tribal districts of South and North Waziristan, not a day passes without a body found with a hand-written note from the Taliban, stating that the person killed was a spy working for the U.S. and Pakistan. On January 5, 2009, one of these notes found with a body warned: "[This is] a gift from the Mujahideen to the U.S. secretary of state. Anyone who goes hunting for dollars will be treated the same way." [9] Local journalists report that during the past few weeks, there has been a rise in the Taliban's killing of so-called "U.S. spies." In fact, the entire tribal region, situated along the border with Afghanistan, is slipping away from the Pakistani control. On January 11, a group of 600 Taliban militants attacked three security checkposts in the tribal district of Mohmand Agency. At least 40 militants and nine Pakistani security personnel were killed during the ensuing fighting. [10] In the first week of January, the Taliban abducted 11 tribal elders in the tribal district of Bajaur Agency where a nearly six-month-long operation by the Pakistani Army has not been able to dislodge the Taliban. The tribal elders were abducted as they were returning from a meeting to establish an anti-Taliban force of tribal fighters supported by the Pakistani Army. [11] On January 12, 2009, in Peshawar, the capital of the North West Frontier Province, the Taliban militants, once again, fired rockets into terminals where the supplies for U.S. and NATO troops are stored before their onward journey to Afghanistan. [12] Even in Quetta, the capital of the Baluchistan province, the Taliban are establishing strongholds. Former Pakistani Senator Sanaullah Baloch warned on January 4, 2009 that in Quetta, the Taliban and their supporters are consolidating their grip, with the involvement of elements in the Pakistani Army. The Baluchi leader added: "Several parts of the provincial capital have become 'no-go areas' where the Taliban and their supporters have consolidated their position..." [13] There are also growing concerns that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants may capture Pakistani nuclear weapons. On January 3, the Information Minister of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP), Mian Iftikhar Hussain, warned that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants may capture the Pakistani nuclear installations. Hussain added: "If the terrorists are not checked, they may go beyond the NWFP, and capture Islamabad and Pakistani nuclear installations." [14] Indian Kashmir A day after the Israeli attacks in Gaza began, and a month after the Mumbai terror attacks, the Taliban threatened to send 500 suicide bombers into India. According to the Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jasarat, Wali Muhammad, a spokesman for the Taliban, warned: "A squad of 500 suicide bombers is ready to fight against India. Thirty-five thousand Taliban fighters armed with modern weapons are ready to go to the eastern border [with India to fight alongside the Pakistani Army]." [15] Recently, the militants developed a new strategy aiming for a redeployment of Pakistani troops, by withdrawing from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and redeploying them alongside the border with India. This allows the Taliban to better entrench their control in the tribal region of Pakistan. In fact, they have succeeded to a great extent, as Pakistan has removed nearly 30,000 troops from the tribal areas and re-deployed them on its Indian border. Notwithstanding the international pressure on Pakistan following the November 26 Mumbai terror attacks, the militants have continued their activities in Indian Kashmir. In the early days of this year, a group of about 10 militants took up positions in a cave in the Bhati Dar area of the Poonch district in India's Jammu and Kashmir state, leading to fierce gunbattles with Indian security forces. According to Indian defense officials, intercepted messages from the militants revealed that top commanders of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad and Al-Badr were holed up in the caves. [16] (All three of these organizations were created in the 1990s by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence.) The fighting between the Indian troops and the militants continued for nine days, ceasing during nights and resuming each morning. Four militants and three security men were killed, but after nine days of fighting, several of the militants successfully escaped. [17] The stand-off with the terrorists was similar to that of the Mumbai terror attacks, the only differences being that it took place far from media attention and that there were no civilian hostages. The fact that the militants escaped after nine days of fighting reflects the challenge faced by Indian security officials in dealing with terrorist threats. As if this one armed confrontation between the jihadists in Kashmir and the Indian Army was not enough, two militants from the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba and two Kashmiri policemen were killed in another such encounter, on January 13, 2009. [18] For the policymakers in India who thought that after the Mumbai terror attacks the activities of militant groups would decline, the jihad in Kashmir continues with increased vigor. These incidents highlight the fact that Islamic militants are on the offensive in India. Deccan Mujahideen, a militant group whose name has been connected to several bomb blasts in India including the Mumbai terror attacks, threatened to attack an international meeting of non-resident Indians held January 7-9, 2009 in the southern city of Chennai. [19] Nothing is known about the leadership of Deccan Mujahideen, but in several instances in the past two years, the group sent emails to media houses a few minutes before blasts were to take place. In another such email threat, the Leela Group, a chain of five-star hotels, received bomb threats, in the second week of January. During an initial probe, it emerged that the message was sent from IP addresses in Kenya and in the United Arab Emirates, but from a single email ID - indicating the possibility that internationally linked groups of militants may be operating. An unidentified police official in Mumbai added that at least two people could be operating the single email ID. [20] Afghanistan In Afghanistan too, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants have recently been on the offensive. Three days after the Israeli offensive in Gaza began, a Taliban commander released an open letter to U.S. president-elect Barack Obama. The letter, by Maulawy Anwarulhaq Mujahid, chief of Tora Bora Battlefield in Afghanistan, warned that as long as the Baitul Maqdis, or the Jerusalem Mosque, remains under occupation, Israel and its supporters will have no peace. [21] In the letter, published on December 30, 2008 on www.toorabora.com, Maulawy Anwarulhaq Mujahid demands that president-elect Obama withdraw U.S. troops not only from Afghanistan but also from all other Islamic nations. If the troops are not withdrawn, Mujahid warned, situations like those in Afghanistan's Helmand province and the Iraqi town of Fallujah will visit major cities like New York and Washington. He added that the flames of the conflict in Afghanistan and other Islamic nations will blow up on Washington. [22] This is a clear threat of another 9/11-like plan germinating the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also, Gulbudin Hekmatyar, chief of Hizb-e-Islami in Afghanistan, is training over 4,000 Afghan youth for jihad against Israel: 750 youth in Wardak province, 500 in Logar province, 1,000 in Tagab (Kapisa), 400 in Nangarhar province, 1,500 students. The Hizb-e-Islami is preparing to send these fighters to Gaza. [23] Meanwhile, the Taliban attacks on the U.S. and NATO troops continue unabated, with at least one U.S. or NATO soldier killed every day so far this month. On their part, the Taliban have consistently rejected appeals to join talks with the Afghan government to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict. In the first week of January, the Taliban in Afghanistan issued an assessment of the U.S. and NATO troops' performance, saying that the calls for peace were a result of heavy coalition casualties. They added: "Mujahedeen (fighters) of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have inflicted heavy defeat on the invading forces and their puppets on the military, political and social fronts." [24] The Afghan government also fears that the Taliban are in a strong position now, especially after Pakistan removed thousands of its troops from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and redeployed them against India. A spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai warned that the Taliban will increasingly enter Afghanistan freely. [25] Conclusion In the region of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, Islamic militant organizations have grown in strength in recent years. In the aftermath of the 11/26 Mumbai terrorist attacks, the links between the militant groups active in these three countries have been exposed to the international community's understanding. However, this has not prevented the jihadists in these countries from carrying on with their activities. For example, Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group and several of its front organizations, including the Jamaatud Dawa charity, were banned by the UN Security Council (UNSC) following the Mumbai terror attacks. However, the Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) is working without any obstacle. On January 11, the Pakistani daily The News reported: "A month after the UNSC proscription... the black-and-white flag of the JuD continues to flutter high over its Muridke headquarters [near Lahore], putting a big question mark on the seriousness of the government to proceed against the outlawed organisation.... [D]espite a government ban on their statements and activities, most of the JuD leaders are moving freely and [have] even convened a public rally on the Mall in Lahore. The rally... was led by Yahya Mujahid, the central secretary of information of the JuD who was one of the 12 leaders supposed to have been placed under house arrest." [26] Thus, these militant organizations find themselves away from the international attention; they are on an offensive to entrench their positions, to further their ideological mission and establish Islamic Shari'a in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region and beyond. *Tufail Ahmad is Director of Urdu-Pashtu Media Project at The Middle East Media Research Institute (www.memri.org ). Obama pledges to succeed where Bush failed on bin Laden
AFP Incoming US president Barack Obama has pledged to try to succeed where his predecessor George W. Bush failed by catching or killing Al-Qaeda terror network leader Osama bin Laden. But Obama, who takes office on January 20, is likely to face many of the same challenges his predecessor did in attempting to neutralize the man behind the deadly September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States. "Bin Laden is like the great white whale of American counter-terrorism, like Moby Dick," said James Lewis, a counter-terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Obama said Wednesday that Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden remain the "number one threat" to US security. He spoke after a new voice recording emerged from the terror group's leader in which bin Laden called for a holy war to restore "Jerusalem and Palestine." Said Obama: "We're going to do everything in our power to make sure that they cannot create safe havens that can attack Americans. That's the bottom line." In an October 7 debate during the presidential campaign Obama said that if elected, his administration "will kill bin Laden. We will crush Al-Qaeda." Bin Laden is widely believed to be hiding in the mountainous border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bush had earlier vowed to catch bin Laden "Dead or Alive," and placed a 25-million-dollar bounty on the Al-Qaeda leader's head. Striking back at bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was the reason for the US-led 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. In a late Wednesday interview with CBS News, Obama signaled a more measured approach to catching the ever-elusive bin Laden, refusing to deliver any "dead or alive" ultimatums. "I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function," Obama said. "My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America." A US counter-terrorism official speaking on condition of anonymity told AFP that there "is no reason to doubt that he (bin Laden) is alive and that he does play a role in directing Al-Qaeda efforts, particularly at a strategic level." But while it is unclear what impact bin Laden's capture would have on Al-Qaeda's operations, it would have an undeniable symbolic effect. Lewis believes that the hunt for the elusive terror network leader has remained intense. One tactic has been flying drones armed with Hellfire missiles in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region, searching for bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. In one successful mission, the head of Al-Qaeda operations in Pakistan and a top lieutenant were killed by missiles fired from an unmanned drone on January 1 in Pakistan. "That has some success so is there a chance we'll get him," said Lewis. "Is the chance increasing? Probably not." Obama has said he is willing to take out bin Laden anywhere. "If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out," Obama said in the October debate. Yet the key to catching bin Laden "lies with the Pakistani government," Lewis said. What the United States wants to do "is secondary to what's going on in Pakistan, the erosion of the Pakistani government, and its ability to control these jihadist forces in its country," he said. "If you want to get bin Laden you've got to stabilize Pakistan and win in Afghanistan," Lewis said. Obama, who has said that Afghanistan and Pakistan are now the front-line in the war on terror, reportedly intends to agree to Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan, doubling the current US force there. Vice-president elect Joe Biden recently returned to Washington from a trip that included stops in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, and on Wednesday promised "a significant shift" in Afghanistan. "Things are going to get tougher in Afghanistan before they get better," he said, adding: "Pakistan's position on Afghanistan is going to affect our ability to succeed." Obama will try to deepen cooperation with Afghanistan, Pakistan and their neighbors to fight Islamist militancy, secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton said in confirmation hearings in the US senate on Tuesday. "We have to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together, particularly (in) the border region," where extremists have taken root, Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "It is imperative that we work with their friends in Pakistan and Afghanistan because, it is not only about denying Al-Qaeda and other groups a safe haven," Clinton said. Sorting Out A Clear Strategy For Afghanistan
NPR - World News The United States invaded Afghanistan just over seven years ago. The immediate goal - to rout the Taliban and al-Qaida from their strongholds - was achieved in good time. But that didn't mean there was a military victory. When Barack Obama takes office next week, he'll inherit an increasingly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. During the presidential campaign, Obama made clear that he wants to start extricating the United States from an unpopular war in Iraq and increase America's commitment in Afghanistan, where Taliban militants are on the offensive. That means more resources, including troops. As many as 30,000 additional service personnel will head to Afghanistan, nearly doubling the number there at the moment. Retired Army Lt. Col. John Nagl with the Center for a New American Security says the key to success in any counterinsurgency campaign is providing security for the population. Nagl says that so far, the U.S. has not be able to do that in Afghanistan. "We have to solve that security vacuum. We have to fill it," he says. "The immediate short-term answer is to fill that security vacuum with American forces." Nagl says that until now, there were sufficient U.S. and NATO troops to clear insurgent areas, but there haven't been enough troops to hold those areas, and so the Taliban fighters return. Nagl says that now is the time for a new administration to devise a clear strategy on how to turn that around. "The correct strategy is going to be some mix of counterinsurgency - clear, hold and build - and counterterrorism, which is whacking the bad guys. We have to find the right balance between those two," he says. "And they can be mutually reinforcing so that when you're conducting effective counterinsurgency, when you're holding what you've cleared, the people grow to trust you and know you, and they then give you more information, which can be effective in counterterrorism operations." Too Late For Troop Increase? Retired Russian Lt. Gen. Ruslan Aushev spent five years in Afghanistan during the 1980s when Soviet forces battled the mujahedeen. Aushev says the new U.S. administration should study the Soviet Union's efforts in Afghanistan before committing more American troops. "One should realize one thing: It is impossible to solve this problem by force," he says. "One should understand and know the history of Afghanistan. They have always been against foreign troops based in the country." Many analysts say the time for a troop increase has come and gone. Seven years into this conflict, the U.S. military runs the risk of looking more like an occupation army than a liberation force. Retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, a professor of history and international affairs at Boston University, says the incoming Obama administration needs to be realistic about what it hopes to do in Afghanistan. He does not support the concept of nation-building there. Bacevich says the new administration should focus on America's key interests: "They are simply to ensure that Afghanistan does not provide sanctuary to violent Islamic radicals intent on launching attacks against the United States," he says. "That's just about all that we care about Afghanistan, or should care." Dealing With Neighbors Bacevich says the new administration's approach to Afghanistan should complement whatever policy it puts together for neighboring Pakistan. "Pakistan is the bigger danger, the bigger concern, the thing we have to get right," he says. Christine Fair of the Rand Corporation, who specializes in South Asia, says Obama needs to quickly lay down the law with the Pakistanis - make it clear they need to be fully committed to fighting the militants in Pakistan's tribal areas, who are allies of the Taliban. "Obama needs to come in and say whatever Bush tolerated, this is a different administration," Fair says. She says Obama also needs to think about Afghanistan in more regional terms, which may include dealing with its neighbor, Iran. Despite longstanding enmity between Washington and Tehran, Fair says Iran could be helpful. Predominantly Shiite Iran has little interest in seeing the Sunni Taliban come back into power in Afghanistan. "By just being willing to put on the table 'we're willing to work with you on Afghanistan' signals to Islamabad that gone are the days when American policymakers think that we need Pakistan more than it needs us," she says. Several policy reviews on Afghanistan are already under way - and are expected to be released not long after Obama is sworn in as the next president. Khalilzad: Afghanistan conflict needs comprehensive approach
IranVNC, DC There is no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, while a more "comprehensive approach" is needed, Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to the United Nations, said yesterday. "In order for Afghanistan to work, you need a more comprehensive approach, political, economic dimension, governance issue, regional dimension, particularly Pakistan," said Khalilzad during a talk in Washington. As part of a broader strategy for success in Afghanistan, Khalizad said additional coalition forces are necessary to hold military gains while Afghani forces are being built. However, "it would be mistake to say this can be solved by a purely military strategy," he added. Khalilzad, a former member of US President George W. Bush's National Security Council, made these remarks during a talk entitled: "Diplomacy and America's Purpose in a Changing World", sponsored by the Washington-based New America Foundation think tank. He called for the appointment of a senior US envoy who will "focus full time to make sure there are no hostile sanctuaries" of militants between Afghanistan and Pakistan. After Khalilzad left his post as US Ambassador to Afghanistan in 2005, charges of rampant corruption and poor governance of the government of President Hamid Karzai have surfaced, in addition to a resurgence of Taliban forces in that country. "The danger we face now is [that] the legitimacy of the change [from the Taliban government] is being questioned because of the problems of the government, because of the corruption, there are so many institutions that are doing worse than they did earlier," he said. The United Nations can be more helpful, Khalilzad stressed, and recommended that a UN representative be made responsible for coordination between Afghanistan's civilian government and foreign military forces in that country. Khalilzad argued that progress on the military front in Afghanistan will not succeed unless there is political improvement, but said that time was needed before any positive results could be achieved. "Getting the Afghan government right is vital part to make progress, but even progress will take time," he said. However, Khalilzad did not mention whether his suggestion for a "comprehensive approach" included Iran. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview published today with the Washington Post that Iran seems not to be too committed to a stable Afghanistan. She said that while Iran had a common interest in counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan, "Some of their behavior in Afghanistan over the last couple of years would suggest that they're not very committed to a stable Afghanistan." Taliban kill ‘US spy' abducted from North Waziristan
Daily Times The Taliban on Thursday shot dead a man accused of spying for US forces across the border in Afghanistan, said officials. They said the 30-year-old was abducted from Miranshah a month ago after a suspected US drone attack on a militant hideout in the area. "He was gunned down before dawn and his body was dumped on a roadside near Miranshah," said an official. A note placed near the body described him as a ‘US spy'. Also in North Waziristan, the Taliban on Wednesday released a senior government official who was abducted last month from Mir Ali district, said officials. "Asmatullah Wazir was freed unconditionally last night," a local official said, adding that his release had followed official pressure on his abductors. afp Afghanistan: Canada Must Pursue a More Independent Foreign Policy
OpEdNews, PA President Barack Obama has promised to send more troops to where the war on terrorism began as the focus seems to have now shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan. Some have went so far as to dub Afghanistan, Obama's war. A troop surge could greatly improve security for Canadian soldiers, but it is unlikely to bring any type of lasting peace or stability to the region. There is a NATO summit planned for April which will mark its 60th anniversary, where there is expected to be increased pressure for Canada to further commit beyond 2011. Canada must look past its military combat role in Afghanistan and pursue a more sovereign independent policy, one that will best assist the Afghan people and one which better represents our own values. Obama has been critical of President George Bush's policy which focused more on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan. With all his talk of change, Obama has demonstrated a willingness to further maintain the U.S. as the world's police force and it is unlikely that his presidency will bring about any radical shift in foreign policy. He will continue and maybe even expand the war on terrorism which could lead to Canada playing a more active role, including possible participation in future American military operations. Whether it be through NORTHCOM, the Civil Assistance Plan signed by the U.S.-Canadian military or the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the further merging of our command structures continues as does the militarization of North America. According to the Fiscal Impact of the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, between $7.7-$10.5 billion has been spent in the last six years on costs related to the mission. The total cost could reach as high as $18.1 billion by 2011. This more than doubles what the Conservative government estimated. This is at the expense of Canadian tax payers and money that many feel should and could be better spent elsewhere, especially considering the current economic crisis. More unfortunate is the high price that Canada has paid with the loss of 107 soldiers. December of 2008 became one of the deadliest months with nine deaths. It has been reported by NATO officials that Canadians have suffered more deaths per capita then any other foreign contingent serving in Afghanistan. The number of wounded Canadian soldiers is also on the rise. Canada has about 2.500 troops positioned in southern part of the country in the Kandahar province which is considered one of the most dangerous areas in the region. Despite the best efforts of some, increasingly NATO forces along with Canadian troops are being seen as the enemy. In spite of billions of dollars in foreign aid that has poured into Afghanistan, anti-western sentiments are growing as well as distrust of foreign troops, while support for the Hamid Karzai government is on the decline. Much of the aid has fallen into the hands of drug and warlords along with corrupt government officials. Many Afghans live in poverty and increased violence as well as the resurgence of the Taliban is being blamed on worsening economic conditions in the country and mounting civilian casualties caused by American and NATO bombings. According to the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) the Taliban now enjoys a permanent presence in up to 70% of the country. A June 2008 poll conducted by the ICOS, formerly known as the Senlis Council, found that six out of every ten Afghans want foreign forces out of the country. There are some who believe that much like Iraq, there has been an almost deliberate ploy to keep Afghanistan unstable in order to further justify American long term military presence in the region. Canada should not be involved in nation building and wars of aggression and should most definitely not be used as an arm of the U.S. military. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario whereby Obama, along with NATO, call upon Canada to further extend its mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011. Although it would be a hard sell, Prime Minister Stephen Harper could turn it into an issue of patriotism, a sense of duty and one which we would be turning our back on the Afghan people and the promise of democracy, if we were to leave. He has said that under no circumstances will Canada pullout before 2011. The Liberals, along with their new leader Michael Ignatieff voted for and support the current mission. In many aspects, there appears to be little difference between Ignatieff and Harper, except in rhetoric alone. Both the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois voted against extending the mission. The idea of a coalition government might be dead, but the reality is that it might have been the best opportunity to scale back our role in Afghanistan and possibly bring our troops home even sooner. Why are Canadian troops still in Afghanistan? Is it to prop up a corrupt puppet government? Are we there to hold strategic territory for pipelines or launch pads for future military aggression? Canadian soldiers are being used as cannon fodder to maintain an already declining American empire. History recounts that another world superpower was forced to leave Afghanistan with their tail between their legs. Even with increased troop levels, American and NATO forces could be headed for the same fate. Canada desperately needs a prime minister that does not buckle under U.S. pressure and isn't afraid to pursue an independent foreign policy. Canada must return to its more traditional role as a peacekeeping nation, one which has garnered praise from the rest of the world.
NATO not doing enough in Afghanistan: British defence secretary British defence secretary John Hutton has sharply criticised other European countries in NATO, saying they are not doing enough to help fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. In an unusually pointed attack on fellow alliance members, Mr Hutton said no one at NATO should believe that they could simply offer a bit of soft power and nice, warm words for the Afghan Government. Mr Hutton said that would not be good enough and what was needed now was effective combat forces to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Although the US has already signalled its preparing to send up to 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan this year, Mr Hutton said NATO would not be an alliance if the Americans were left to do all the work. -BBC Afghanistan: Media watchdog urges govt to defend press freedom
AKI A media watchdog has on Thursday, urged Afghan President Hamid Karzai to defend press freedom in the war-torn country. "The press freedom situation is getting worse in Afghanistan and it is the government's duty to reverse this disturbing trend," said Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard during a media conference in the capital Kabul. "The country cannot continue to develop and progress towards democracy without a free and independent press," said Julliard, who warned that the country will not able to recover from 30 years of war "without free and diverse news media." RWB also said that threats against Afghan as well as foreign journalists are becoming more diverse. The RWB delegation visited the Kabul provisional detention centre on 12 January to meet with journalist Perwiz Kambakhsh, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for downloading an essay about women's rights in Islam. He was originally sentenced to death. "As long as a citizen can be sentenced to death or to a long jail term just for reading a report on the Internet, we will not be able to say there is free expression in Afghanistan. Perwiz Kambakhsh must be released as soon as possible," Julliard said. According to the latest Worldwide Press Freedom index published by RWB, Afghanistan is listed as one of the worst performers in the world, occupying the 156 spot, out of 173 countries surveyed. More than 3000 People Die Because of Air Pollution Every year
Written by http://www.quqnoos.com/ MOPH has warned that if air pollution is not curbed, a health disaster will occur in the country The ministry of health says more than 3000 people in Kabul die due to air pollution every year. The minister of health, Muhammad Amin Fatimi, has warned that if air pollution is not curbed, a health disaster will occur in the country. The Afghanistan Environment Department (AED) says it has specified $100 million for the next two years for the prevention of air pollution. Afghanistan hostage to its own insecurity
AFP More than seven years and billions of foreign aid dollars after the Taliban were toppled, Afghanistan remains hostage to its own deadly insurgency-and a nightmare for the incoming US administration. The massive infusions of aid since the hardline regime was removed in a US-led invasion in late 2001 have led to some improvements, including an expanded education system, better health care and a freer media. But the same progress has not been seen on the security front- by far the most costly part of the international intervention, with tens of thousands of foreign troops deployed here and new bases built across the country. US President-elect Barack 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, with up to 30,000 new US troops due here by mid-2009. But experts say he and Afghan President Hamid Karzai face a Herculean task, with insurgent bombings thought to have roughly doubled in number in 2008 from the previous year and civilian and military death tolls spiralling upwards. "Although Afghan and international leaders face innumerable obstacles to success... leaders will be particularly challenged by the need to balance the rebuilding of the security forces with the demands of fighting an ongoing insurgency," wrote former interior minister Ali A. Jalali. A key problem is that the weak Afghan army and police have been unable to provide "the space political leaders and development professionals need to initiate comprehensive state-building processes," he argued. That challenge has been compounded by myriad problems including a weak economic base, a crumbling infrastructure and a culture of corruption, Jalali wrote in The Future of Afghanistan, a collection of essays Barnett R Rubin, a leading expert on Afghanistan, wrote in the same book that Karzai's fledgling government had been undermined by the "tsunami of corruption" generated by the massive influx of foreign aid. "There is no foreseeable trajectory under which the Afghan state will become a self-sustaining member of the international community at peace with its neighbours in the coming 10 years," Rubin predicted. Karzai himself admits the situation is far from rosy. "We are in a trench and our allies are with us in the trench," he told the Chicago Tribune last month, reminiscing about the "glorious success in 2002" after the Taliban was ousted, when support for his government was strong. But since then, the number of civilians killed in military operations has soared, turning people against the "war on terror," the US-backed Afghan leader said. Experts say Afghans have also been alienated by the government's failure to deliver on its grand promises of a better future - largely because it is stuck in the quagmire of fighting the stubborn insurgency. Around 70 percent of the country's population of about 30 million people live below the poverty line, said Hamidullah Tarzi, a communist-era finance minister, adding the country needs construction and jobs. "A very minor percent can say that life has improved," he said, singling out businessmen and powerbrokers from the past decades of conflict who have secured positions of influence in the new administration. A persistent trade in opium and heroin, worth a few billion dollars a year, is financing some of the insurgency and maintaining corrupt officials-some of them said to be at the highest levels. Jalali said only redoubled efforts to build capable Afghan security forces would bring the country out of the "downward spiral" referred to in a draft US National Intelligence Estimate last year, with development alone not enough to win over militia commanders, drugs traffickers and corrupt officials. US-led efforts to train and equip the Afghan army have picked up pace, churning out about 2,500 men a month, although similar efforts to grow the police have lagged under a European mission. But the government here is ambivalent about the arrival of new US troops, saying the money would be better spent on developing Afghanistan's own forces. The new forces could help to "push the Taliban back a little" to pressure them into accepting the government's offer of talks, said Ahmad Idrees Rahmani, director of Afghanistan's Centre for Research and Policy Studies. Rahmani said that presidential elections due this year are as critical to stability as the fight against insurgents. "Over the last six, seven years, the biggest challenge for the international community in Afghanistan was to convince most of the power-brokers that there is only one legitimate mechanism to hold power," he said. Failure to go ahead with the vote could see warlords try to muscle their way back into power with the excuse that the new order does not work, he warned-a replay of the 1990s civil war that destroyed the capital. Homayun Hamidzada, Karzai's spokesman, said there could be progress if the militants were brought to heel, especially by cutting off their support lines in neighbouring Pakistan, and if Afghan institutions are allowed to mature. And now the strategic encirclement of Pakistan
Reuters India An Indian military presence in Afghanistan to put further pressure on Pakistan? That would be the red rag for Pakistan, and the end of its long struggle to seek strategic depth in Afghanistan against its much larger eastern neighbour. Indian newspapers have reported army chief General Deepak Kapoor as saying at a news conference that such a move would squeeze Pakistan, although he seemed to be at considerable pains to stress this was a decision that India's politicians had to take. Kapoor said New Delhi's efforts in Afghanistan, which themselves have aroused suspicion in Islamabad, were confined to reconstruction so far. It was up to the Indian government to decide whether the option to "strategically squeeze" Pakistan from both sides by placing a division or so of Indian soldiers in Afghanistan should be considered. "We are only assisting Afghanistan in its reconstruction efforts at present. The political leadership will have to take a decision if something more is required," the general said, according to the Times of India. The Hindustan Times quoted him thus: "Changing our strategic policy towards Kabul in terms of raising military stakes is one of the factors that is to be determined politically." Kapoor's remarks, however carefully phrased, are unlikely to go unnoticed in the strategic establishments. Is it feasible or is this a part of a tense psychological battle that New Delhi has mounted against Pakistan following the Mumbai attacks? You could argue several reasons why an Indian military presence in Afghanistan is most unlikely beginning from the fact this further complicates a messy battlefield where America is doing all it can to get everyone, but especially the Pakistanis, to focus on the hunt for al Qaeda and the Taliban. Then, how do you justify sending troops to another country, even if it is Afghanistan? Would they be part of the U.S.-led coalition or would they operate independently? Is it even feasible from a military point of view? Perhaps the idea is to force Pakistan to blink by threatening to squeeze it militarily, on top of a diplomatic encirclement as pointed out in a previous post on this blog. On Thursday, Pakistan said security forces had closed five training camps run by Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group blamed for the Mumbai attack, and arrested 124 of its leaders and those of a related charity. So it doesn't look like the heat is off, even if there is considerably less talk of conflict AFGHANISTAN : Reporters Without Borders gives Kabul news conference, urges government to make press freedom a priority
REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS AFGHANISTAN Reporters Without Borders gives Kabul news conference, urges government to make press freedom a priority Addressing a news conference today in Kabul, Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard urged President Hamid Karzai and the rest of the Afghan government to make it one of their priorities to defend press freedom. Accompanied by representatives of Afghan journalists' organisations, Julliard gave the press conference on the penultimate day of a one-week fact-finding visit to Afghanistan at the head of a Reporters Without Borders delegation. "The press freedom situation is getting worse in Afghanistan and it is the government's duty to reverse this disturbing trend," Julliard said. "The country cannot continue to develop and progress towards democracy without a free and independent press. The president and his government must get fully involved in this issue and must take measures that give journalists more freedom to work. Much needs to be done in Afghanistan but the country will not be able to recover from 30 years of war without free and diverse news media." Reporters Without Borders continued: "The threats against Afghan journalists and visiting foreign journalists are becoming more and more diverse. As well as the Taliban, who have never ceased to threaten to kill journalists who do not comply with their demands, there are now criminals and mafia groups. "Afghan journalists are free to express their views - as long as they stay clear of the country's only truly taboo subject, Islam - but they operate in very difficult security conditions. The south and the east of the country are extremely unstable and fewer and fewer journalists are visiting these regions, which are no longer under government control and have become black holes for news and information." The Reporters Without Borders delegation visited the Kabul provisional detention centre on 12 January to meet with journalist Perwiz Kambakhsh, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for downloading an essay about women's rights in Islam. He was originally sentenced to death. "As long as a citizen can be sentenced to death or to a long jail term just for reading a report on the Internet, we will not be able to say there is free expression in Afghanistan. Perwiz Kambakhsh must be released as soon as possible. He committed no crime and this case, which has been marred by judicial irregularities, is a grave stain on Afghanistan's image. We told all the officials we met that his conviction must be overturned." Two journalists were killed in 2008 and around 50 were attacked or injured. Reporters Without Borders believes President Karzai must get to grips with this issue and make it very clear that he will not let impunity take hold as regards violence against journalists. Many live in fear, and it is the job of the authorities to take measures to reassure them and to enable them to work without constant security concerns. It is deplorable than around 10 women journalists have been forced to abandon their work in recent months because of threats. Few of them got the necessary protection. The authorities need to be more effective in solving the cases of journalists who have been murdered or who have been the victims of threats. Proper investigations need to be carried out to identify those responsible. It is unacceptable that the murders of Zakia Zaki and Abdul Samad Rohani have gone unpunished. Reporters Without Borders also called for the rapid adoption of a proposed media law. Many journalists' representatives are expecting a lot from this bill, which is still being examined and which has been a victim of the difficulties that the parliament and government are having in working together. The government must also envisage drafting a law facilitating access to information. All the journalists who met the delegation said it was hard to get reliable information or comments from officials. Reporters Without Borders said: "In any important event linked to the ongoing conflict, there are at least five different versions of the facts - the Taliban version, the defence ministry version, the version of the president's office, the version of the International Security Assistance Force, and the version of the few eye-witnesses who are ready to talk to the press. The government version is often the longest and hardest to obtain. While we welcome the creation of a Media Centre, the government must communicate better and make itself more available to journalists." Reporters Without Borders also believes certain media owners must stop meddling in editorial content. The owners of media and their reporters should be kept far apart. Too many media are used for partisan purposes by their shareholders, and news quality suffers as a result. Journalists' organisations are also discussing a code of conduct for the media and Reporters Without Borders supports this initiative. Reporters Without Borders also hails the efforts of Afghan journalists' organisations to unite in defence of press freedom. As well as Julliard, the Reporters Without Borders delegation consisted of Vincent Brossel, the head of its Asia Desk, and Réza Moini, the staff member responsible for Afghanistan. They met the justice minister, the culture and information minister, a Council of Ulemas representative, civil society representatives, ISAF officials, diplomats and many journalists and media organisations. The delegation arrived in Afghanistan on 10 January and is due to leave tomorrow. Reporters Without Borders will issue a detailed report on the visit in the coming weeks. --------------------- 15 JANVIER 2009 AFGHANISTAN Les autorités doivent faire de la liberté de la presse l'une de leurs priorités : Reporters sans frontières tient une conférence de presse à Kaboul Reporters sans frontières a appelé les autorités afghanes, et notamment le président Hamid Karzai, à faire de la défense de la liberté de la presse l'une de leurs priorités. Aux côtés de représentants d'associations afghanes de journalistes, l'organisation internationale a tenu, le 15 janvier 2009, une conférence de presse à Kaboul, au terme d'une mission d'enquête. « La situation de la liberté de la presse se dégrade en Afghanistan et il est de la responsabilité du gouvernement d'enrayer cette dérive inquiétante. Le pays ne pourra continuer à progresser vers la démocratie et se développer sans une presse libre et indépendante. Le chef de l'Etat et son gouvernement doivent se saisir pleinement de ce dossier et prendre des mesures pour permettre aux journalistes de travailler dans de meilleures conditions. Les chantiers sont nombreux en Afghanistan, mais le pays ne pourra pas se remettre de trente ans de guerre sans l'aide d'une information libre et diversifiée », a déclaré Jean-François Julliard, secrétaire général de Reporters sans frontières, à Kaboul. « Les menaces dont sont les cibles les journalistes afghans et étrangers présents dans le pays sont de plus en plus diversifiées. Aux taliban, qui n'ont jamais cessé de menacer de mort les journalistes qui ne se plient par à leurs demandes, sont venus s'ajouter des criminels et des groupes mafieux. Les journalistes afghans sont libres de s'exprimer - tant qu'ils ne s'en prennent pas au seul véritable sujet tabou du pays : l'islam - mais travaillent dans des conditions sécuritaires difficiles. Le sud et l'est du pays sont extrêmement instables et les journalistes sont de moins en moins nombreux à se rendre dans les régions qui échappent au contrôle des autorités, devenues de vrais trous noirs de l'information », a indiqué l'organisation. La délégation s'est rendue au centre de détention provisoire de Kaboul, le 12 janvier, pour rencontrer Perwiz Kambakhsh, condamné en appel à vingt ans de prison pour avoir téléchargé un texte sur la condition des femmes dans la religion musulmane. « Tant qu'un citoyen pourra être condamné à mort ou à une lourde peine de prison simplement pour avoir consulté un texte sur Internet, on ne pourra pas dire que l'expression est libre en Afghanistan. Perwiz Kambakhsh doit être libéré au plus vite. Il n'a commis aucun crime et cette affaire, entachée d'irrégularités dans la procédure judiciaire, nuit gravement à l'image de l'Afghanistan. Nous avons demandé sa relaxe à tous les officiels que nous avons rencontrés », a ajouté Reporters sans frontières. Deux professionnels de la presse ont été tués en 2008, une cinquantaine d'autres ont été blessés ou agressés. Pour Reporters sans frontières, Hamid Karzai doit prendre cette question à bras-le-corps et rappeler fermement qu'il ne laissera pas l'impunité s'installer concernant les violences commises contre des journalistes. Beaucoup vivent dans la crainte et il est de la responsabilité des autorités de prendre des mesures pour les rassurer et leur permettre de travailler sereinement. Il est déplorable qu'une dizaine de femmes journalistes aient été obligées, au cours des derniers mois, d'abandonner leur travail, en raison de menaces. Elles ont rarement bénéficié de la protection nécessaire. Les autorités doivent être plus efficaces dans la résolution des dossiers des journalistes assasinés ou victimes de menaces et mener de réelles enquêtes pour en identifier les auteurs. L'impunité dans les assassinats de Zakia Zaki et Abdul Samad Rohani est inacceptable. Reporters sans frontières a également appelé à une adoption rapide du projet de loi sur les médias. De nombreux représentants de la profession attendent beaucoup de ce texte, toujours en cours d'examen et qui est victime des difficultés du Parlement et du gouvernement à travailler ensemble. Le gouvernement doit aussi envisager la rédaction d'une loi facilitant l'accès à l'information. La totalité des journalistes rencontrés par la délégation estiment qu'il est difficile d'obtenir des informations fiables ou des commentaires de la part des autorités. « Dans le cas d'un événement important lié au conflit en cours, il existe au moins cinq versions différentes des faits : celle des taliban, celle du ministère de la Défense, celle de la présidence, celle de l'ISAF et celle des quelques témoins directs qui acceptent de parler à la presse. Souvent, les informations des autorités sont les plus longues et les plus difficiles à obtenir. Si nous nous félicitons de la création d'un Centre pour les médias, il faut que le gouvernement communique mieux et se rende plus disponible pour les journalistes », a ajouté Reporters sans frontières. Par ailleurs, Reporters sans frontières estime que certains propriétaires de médias doivent cesser d'interférer dans le contenu éditorial. Une frontière étanche doit s'établir entre les rédactions et les propriétaires. Beaucoup de médias sont utilisés par leurs actionnaires à des fins partisanes et la qualité de l'information en pâtit. Des associations de journalistes réfléchissent également à un code de conduite pour les médias et Reporters sans frontières soutient cette initiative. L'organisation salue également les efforts des associations de journalistes afghans en vue de s'unir afin de défendre la liberté de la presse. La mission de Reporters sans frontières était composée de Jean-François Julliard, son secrétaire général, Vincent Brossel, son responsable Asie, et Réza Moini, en charge de l'Afghanistan. Elle a rencontré le ministre de la Justice, le ministre de la Culture et de l'Information, un représentant du Conseil des Oulémas, des représentants de la société civile, des officiers de l'ISAF et des diplomates ainsi que de nombreux journalistes et des associations professionnelles. Elle a séjourné dans le pays du 10 au 16 janvier 2009. L'organisation publiera un rapport détaillé dans les prochaines semaines.
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
