 |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serving you since 1998 | ||||||||||||
|
|
New U.S. envoy in Afghanistan to assess security
By Jon Hemming
KABUL (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama's new envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan met key ministers in the Afghan capital on Friday, two days after triple Taliban attacks in the city demonstrated just how much security is deteriorating.
U.S. intelligence chief warns Taliban gaining under weak Karzai rule
By Mark Mazzetti International Herald Tribune Thursday, February 12, 2009
WASHINGTON: The new director of national intelligence warned Thursday that Afghanistan's weak and corrupt government is failing to halt the spread of Taliban control and said that public support for the Taliban and local warlords was increasing.
Official: Afghanistan, Pakistan losing ground
By Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writer – Thu Feb 12, 7:30 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan are losing ground to insurgents and terrorists but the most immediate threat to U.S. security interests is the festering global economic crisis, the nation's top intelligence official told Congress on Thursday.
Changing the guard in Kabul?
The Economist 02/13/2009
America is debating whether to stick by Hamid Karzai. The stakes are high
We must help Afghanistan find a government that works
Telegraph, UK By Con Coughlin 02/13/2009
Britain and America need to adopt a new strategy to solve the country's problems, writes Con Coughlin.
Afghanistan: Australian troops 'condemned' for civilian deaths
Kabul, 13 Feb. (AKI) - Afghanistan on Friday condemned the killing of civilians in a raid conducted by Australian soldiers without any local forces in the south of the country.
5 children killed during Australian operation in Afghanistan
By Richard A. Oppel Jr. International Herald Tribune Friday, February 13, 2009
KABUL;: Five children were killed in predawn fighting Thursday between Australian special operations troops and Taliban guerrillas in south-central Afghanistan, the latest incident of rising civilian casualties that have hurt support for American and NATO troops here.
Last Russian general warns US on Afghanistan
By Associated Press Friday, February 13, 2009
MOSCOW — Twenty years after Red Army troops pulled out of Afghanistan, the last general to command them says the Soviets’ devastating experience is a dismal omen for U.S. plans to build up troops there.
Viacom's ex-CEO on Kabul's front lines
CNN Money February 12, 2009
While the global economic crisis consumes our focus, did you realize that Afghanistan is sliding into greater chaos? Yesterday, on the eve of U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke's visit,
Karzai: U.S. troops can't leave Afghanistan soon
CNN 13 February 2009
President Hamid Karzai said that with a resurgent Taliban, a still-flourishing drug trade and a border with Pakistan believed to be home base for al Qaeda, Afghanistan can't afford for U.S. troops to leave any time soon.
£2.6bn Cost Of War In Afghanistan
SkyNews via Yahoo! UK & Ireland News - Feb 13 12:17 AM
The cost of Britain's military operations in Afghanistan soared by more than two-thirds to £2.6bn last year. Skip related content
FACTBOX-Security developments in Afghanistan, Feb 13
13 Feb 2009 11:39:37 GMT
Feb 13 (Reuters) - Following are security developments in Afghanistan at 1130 GMT on Friday:
In Pakistan, U.S. Special Envoy Finds Discontent
The New York Times By JANE PERLEZ 13 February 2009
LAHORE, Pakistan - The American special envoy, Richard C. Holbrooke, wound down his whistle-stop tour of Pakistan on Wednesday with a brief visit to the lawless tribal areas, and then dinner with liberal intellectuals at a rooftop restaurant here in Lahore.
Back to Top
New U.S. envoy in Afghanistan to assess security
By Jon Hemming
KABUL (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama's new envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan met key ministers in the Afghan capital on Friday, two days after triple Taliban attacks in the city demonstrated just how much security is deteriorating.
Wednesday's attacks on government buildings show how hard it is for the Afghan government and its Western backers to ensure security, even with dozens of police checkpoints in Kabul and armed guards at the entrance of every state office.
Holbrooke met with the Afghan ministers of defense and the interior, the head of the national intelligence agency and President Hamid Karzai's security adviser at the heavily guarded U.S. embassy, an Afghan government official said.
He is due to meet Karzai later in the day, said the official, who declined to be named.
Holbrooke, who arrived in Kabul after four days in Pakistan, has so far been tight-lipped during his first trip to the region in his new role as Obama's point man on the conflict that has become a U.S. foreign policy priority.
Famed for negotiating the 1995 Dayton accord that ended the war in Bosnia, Holbrooke is a relative newcomer to South Asian politics. Before two private visits since 2006, Holbrooke had only traveled to Afghanistan once, as a backpacker in 1971.
Ahead of the 10-day trip that will end in India, Holbrooke admitted Afghanistan would be a "tougher challenge than Iraq."
NO PURELY MILITARY SOLUTION
Top of the list of problems is finding ways to stem the Taliban insurgency that has forced a stalemate on international forces in the south and spread to the outskirts of the capital.
The insurgent presence so close to Kabul has spilled over into a crime-wave in the city, analysts say, further undermining public faith in authorities most already view as corrupt.
Afghan security forces have set up ever more checkpoints inside Kabul and more roads near Western embassies are blocked with high concrete barriers snarling traffic elsewhere, but still the Taliban bombers manage to get through.
Eight Taliban gunmen, each wired with a suicide vest, penetrated that cordon on Wednesday and simultaneously assaulted three government buildings in what analysts said appeared to be a mimic of the Mumbai attacks of November.
Police shot dead three of the attackers before they could enter the offices and Afghan security forces swiftly stormed the buildings and killed the rest, blunting the effect of what could have turned into a protracted hostage standoff.
Nevertheless, 26 people were killed in the attack.
"Kabul is a free and open city so it's really very difficult to defend every aspect ... People wander freely with these little suicide vests disguised under their clothing and they're hard to detect," said U.S. forces spokesman Colonel Greg Julian.
While Washington is considering whether to almost double its troops in Afghanistan to some 60,000, the U.S. government recognizes there is no purely military solution to the conflict and more must be done to bring development and effective government to a country scarred by nearly 30 years of war.
Complicating that task is the diplomatic conundrum of trying to ease the rivalry between Pakistan and India which helps fuel the conflict in Afghanistan, accommodate regional powers Iran and Russia, and maintain an alliance of more than 40 nations.
(Editing by Jerry Norton)
Back to Top
Back to Top
U.S. intelligence chief warns Taliban gaining under weak Karzai rule
By Mark Mazzetti International Herald Tribune Thursday, February 12, 2009
WASHINGTON: The new director of national intelligence warned Thursday that Afghanistan's weak and corrupt government is failing to halt the spread of Taliban control and said that public support for the Taliban and local warlords was increasing.
The assessment underscored in stark terms the obstacles facing the Obama administration as it vows to focus more American troops and attention on the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan. The intelligence chief, Dennis Blair, described the American-backed government of Hamid Karzai as increasingly ineffective and unpopular.
Blair delivered his assessment in written testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, offering the government's first public accounting of the national security challenges facing the new administration. Blair also repeated that no improvement in Afghanistan was possible without Pakistan taking control of its border region, but he said that the Pakistani government was losing authority over that territory and that even more developed parts of Pakistan were coming under the sway of Islamic radicalism.
Blair did say that a top echelon of Al Qaeda's leadership hiding in the Pakistani mountains has been battered in recent months - the result of a barrage of strikes by drone aircraft operated by the CIA.
But American intelligence officials have long said that dismantling Al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan would take more than a campaign of airstrikes against the group's leadership. It would also need a sustained effort by Islamabad to develop and govern the semi-autonomous tribal lands.
Blair's written testimony was made public as he prepared to appear in person before the intelligence committee Thursday afternoon. For the first time since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the annual threat report did not list Al Qaeda as the most immediate threat facing the United States. Instead, Blair devoted the beginning of his testimony to the implications of the economic crisis and the "likelihood of serious damage to U.S. strategic interests."
The crisis spawned by American markets, the report read, "has increased questioning of U.S. stewardship of the global economy and the international financial structure."
Blair also cited growing concern among American spies that North Korea could be using a covert uranium enrichment program to produce fissile material for its small arsenal of nuclear weapons.
In a departure from previous years, when the heads of several intelligence agencies joined the director of national intelligence to deliver the threat testimony, Blair on Thursday was facing the committee alone. The message was clear: that the Obama administration plans for Blair to exert greater control over American spy agencies and for him to take on a more public role at the top of the intelligence pyramid.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Official: Afghanistan, Pakistan losing ground
By Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writer – Thu Feb 12, 7:30 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan are losing ground to insurgents and terrorists but the most immediate threat to U.S. security interests is the festering global economic crisis, the nation's top intelligence official told Congress on Thursday.
The security situations of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where al-Qaida leadership continues to plan attacks against the United States, are inextricably linked, said National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair in his first annual threat briefing since being confirmed two weeks ago.
"No improvement is possible in Afghanistan without Pakistan taking control of its border areas," Blair said.
But both governments have lost ground to militants_ the Afghans in the south, east and northwest, including in cities and villages where the Taliban was once routed, and the Pakistanis in the north and west.
The governments themselves are largely to blame, Blair said. Neither has addressed the corruption, mounting economic hardships, humanitarian conditions and lack of basic services that make the areas fertile grounds for militants.
His comments point to one of the most troubling aspects of U.S. national security. The most dire physical threats emanate from the border area between the two countries, but there is little the United States can do directly to address the root causes of extremism.
But Blair said there has been progress made against al-Qaida: four top leaders were killed in Pakistan's tribal areas the last year and they were replaced by much more junior figures with less experience and influence.
The organization is far from beaten, Blair said. It remains the greatest direct threat to the United States.
Blair said the U.S. has little insight into al-Qaida's planned attacks, and noted that recruitment of Westerners since 2006 for al-Qaida training in the tribal area makes detection of potential terrorists even more difficult. Attacks against U.S. interests in East Africa are likely in the next year.
Blair's remarks reflect both the depth of the unfolding recession and the Obama administration's more expansive definition of national security. Blair warned of the potential threats that could flow from global climate change; coming struggles for energy resources, food and water from an exploding population; and the threat to U.S. information networks from hackers.
He said most attacks on U.S. networks originate from internet addresses in Russia and China. The capabilities reside in both the military and civilian realms. He demurred answering whether the Russian government cooperates with organized crime hacker networks to launch attacks.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the committee plans to increase its focus on threats to U.S. computer networks.
Iran continues making progress toward having a nuclear weapon and could have one as soon as next year, Blair said.
"If Iran pursued its centrifuge uranium technology, they could have a weapon as early as 2010, but it might take them until 2015," he said.
Iran last week launched its first small satellite with a multistage rocket, technology that could be used to make a long-range weapon.
"If they put resources on it they can make a serious missile program," Blair said, adding that Iran is making ground on "developing all its components of a deliverable nuclear weapon program."
That weapon is not inevitable, he said, if the international community can put together a package of incentives and security guarantees that would dissuade Iran.
Blair also said Russia is growing more bold, actively cultivating independent relationship with China, Venezuela and Iran, and trying to maintain control over energy networks to Europe and East Asia.
Blair's 49-page written remarks, however, focused first on what he said the most pressing immediate threat to the United States: the economic crisis.
His statement was a marked departure from threat briefings of years past, which focused on more traditional notions of national security worries.
He warned the Senate Intelligence Committee that if the economic crisis lasts more than two years, already unstable governments could topple. And a number of allies the United States depends on might no longer be able to afford to meet their own defense and humanitarian obligations, he said.
"Time is probably our greatest threat. The longer it takes for the recovery to begin, the greater the likelihood of serious damage to U.S. strategic interests," he told the Senate Intelligence Committee, as Congress prepares to vote Friday on a $789 billion stimulus package.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Changing the guard in Kabul?
The Economist 02/13/2009
America is debating whether to stick by Hamid Karzai. The stakes are high
THE Afghan guard of honour, in green uniform and white gloves, formed an orderly line at Kabul's presidential palace, Arg-e-Shahi, as snowflakes drifted down through the smog onto their gold braid. It would be some hours before they welcomed Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general. But beforehand the guards had to line up for a different sort of inspection: passing through a metal detector; being frisked; and placing their rifles through an X-ray machine to make sure they were unloaded. One can never be too safe when it comes to the security of Hamid Karzai, the target of many an assassination attempt during his seven years as president.
American policy in Afghanistan, resting on the idea of bolstering Mr Karzai's government, has been one bullet away from disaster. But as the Taliban surge back with every year of fighting—this week insurgents killed at least 20 people in attacks on three government buildings in Kabul—the Americans are starting to think that the real problem may be Mr Karzai himself.
The Afghan president had enjoyed cosy fortnightly video conferences with President George Bush. Under Barack Obama, these have ended. Indeed, Mr Obama's team has been critical of Mr Karzai. As chairman of the Senate's foreign-relations committee, Joe Biden, now vice-president, walked out last year from a dinner given by Mr Karzai, fuming at his host's evasions about opium-fuelled corruption. Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, has referred to Afghanistan as a “narco-state”.
Mr Karzai has taken to scrutinising foreign news reports to identify his detractors. He has become strident about the killing of civilians by foreign troops. During Mr Ban's visit he said that the Americans were putting pressure on him to keep quiet “but that is not possible”. At a graduation ceremony for the first batch of Afghan military cadets last month, he demanded that America give him planes and tanks, “otherwise we will get them from the other place”—ie, Russia. Asked at a security conference in Munich last weekend whether the Americans wanted to dump him, Mr Karzai told a German newspaper: “The Afghans determine who leads Afghanistan We are not a colony.”
The stirrings of anti-Western sentiment worry NATO commanders as they prepare for a big effort to push back the Taliban, with the expected arrival of 15,000-30,000 American troops this year. Mr Biden is said to have warned Mr Karzai privately last month to “knock it off”. In public, though, NATO puts on a brave face. “I compare it to a marriage,” says Brigadier-General Richard Blanchette, spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), echoing similar comments by Mr Karzai. “After seven years you may hear the couple speaking in loud voices but the exchange is not necessarily negative.”
Perhaps so. But Richard Holbrooke, America's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, was visiting the region this week to decide whether to seek a divorce. Before his appointment he had pointed to “massive, officially sanctioned corruption” as one of the country's biggest problems. As a diplomat, though, he may be more cautious about unseating Mr Karzai. Mr Holbrooke told the Munich conference that resolving the problem of Afghanistan would be “much tougher than Iraq”. Moreover it had to be tackled not just in Afghanistan but together with the worsening turmoil across the border in Pakistan; the policy must deal with “AfPak”, he says. He will no doubt have to consider even wider regional implications, including relations with Iran. Moreover, Kyrgyzstan has announced its intention to close the American base at Manas, apparently under pressure from Moscow (which in turn promises to allow NATO's non-arms supplies to pass through Russian territory, and is even considering offering its own military aircraft to help resupply NATO forces).
Under review No decisions will be taken at least until NATO's summit in April. President Obama has ordered a policy review, to be conducted by Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer. He will draw in part on three studies—by the White House, the Pentagon and officers at US Central Command—ordered by the outgoing Bush administration. One thing seems certain, however. Mr Obama looks just as determined as Mr Bush to keep up the drone and guided-rocket strikes against suspected al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan's tribal belt. “I am not going to allow al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden to operate with impunity, planning attacks on the US homeland,” he said this week.
The question for America is the degree to which fighting al-Qaeda requires an ever-growing garrison and wholesale state-building in Afghanistan—and whether Mr Karzai is a help or a hindrance. If America were minded to unseat him, it would probably have no better opportunity than the looming constitutional crisis. Afghanistan's election commission has delayed presidential elections until August, by when more American and Afghan troops should be available, and the fighting season should have peaked. But Mr Karzai's term expires in May and the constitution makes no provision for a postponed ballot. The president clearly intends to stay in office and stand for re-election, but parliament long ago turned hostile. The speaker of the lower house, Younus Qanuni, insists that Mr Karzai should step down in May. Ramzan Bashardost, a maverick former minister of planning who has been holding court in a tent outside parliament, says that if Mr Karzai stays on it would be tantamount to a coup d'état.
Some Western diplomats think opposition leaders are unlikely to press too hard to unseat Mr Karzai because they are not ready for elections. They would not agree who should take over, even in the interim. And Mr Karzai's removal would probably force the resignation of the defence and interior ministers, and of the intelligence chief, creating a vacuum ahead of what is likely to be an intense fighting season.
Kai Eide, the UN's representative in Afghanistan, says he is “very worried” by the furore, and thinks Afghan and Western governments should tone down their rhetoric: “Afghanistan cannot afford a more tense relationship with its main troop-contributing countries, and cannot afford a constitutional crisis; it certainly cannot afford both at the same time.”
The trouble with Karzai Charismatic and conciliatory, Mr Karzai was once the darling of the West. Under him progress has been made, not least in extending basic health services and education and in creating a well-liked Afghan army. But as the fighting has intensified and spread—insurgent attacks were up by a third and civilian casualties increased by 40% last year over 2007—opinion of Mr Karzai has darkened. He is now seen as indecisive and a poor administrator, using his “pocketful of mobile telephones” to deal with endless petitioners rather than running a proper government. He now has a more able team of ministers, notably those dealing with security. But his presidential staff is still deemed incompetent.
Afghan leaders mainly blame Pakistan for the insurgency. But many believe it is being fuelled by a sense of injustice, the exclusion of some tribes from power and by corruption. An American commander says that instead of seeking “to serve and to protect”, the Afghan police works “to exploit and to extort”. Babrak Shinwari, an independent (ex-communist) member of parliament, describes Mr Karzai as weak. “Security is getting worse day by day,” he says. “If the president is not changed we will have a big war in Afghanistan, like we had in Russian times.”
In many eyes, Mr Karzai's greatest shortcoming is his failure to assert his authority over his younger half-brother, Ahmed Wali, whose grip on the tribal politics of Kandahar has antagonised many. Diplomats speak of “towering rows” between the two. But Mr Karzai cannot win an election without the help of his brother's network among the southern Pushtun tribes.
Gauging opinion is particularly inexact in Afghanistan. Yet some broad trends are apparent from two opinion polls, one published in October by the Asia Foundation, an American NGO, and one this month by three broadcasters, including the BBC. Both surveys found that the number of people who thought Afghanistan was going in the “right direction” had dropped over recent years while those who thought the opposite had grown; optimists and pessimists were roughly even. Of those who said things were going badly, about half cited growing insecurity and violence, followed by corruption and poverty.
The broadcasters' poll also found that support for Mr Karzai has been falling, although 52% still thought he was doing a good or even excellent job (some analysts say his true support is much lower). The standing of Western forces was also in decline (just 33% thought they were doing a good or excellent job) although the Taliban and foreign jihadists were highly unpopular. The real vote may depend less on personal choices than on the wishes of local strongmen. If Mr Karzai runs as incumbent, he is thought to have enough money, patronage and tribal alliances to win once again. “He can only win if he cheats, and he can only cheat if he is in office,” claims an Afghan businessman.
Strangely, given Mr Karzai's declining popularity, few prominent rivals have yet announced their intention to run. And in truth, it is hard to think of a candidate who is obviously more appealing than Mr Karzai. The conventional wisdom is that Afghanistan needs to be led by a Pushtun with credibility among the southern tribes (Mr Karzai's Popolzai are linked to royalty) and, ideally, acceptable to Pakistan.
Mr Qanuni, who came second in the last presidential ballot, and the former foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah, are regarded as able. But the former is a Tajik and the latter, although claiming some Pushtun roots, is closely associated with the Tajiks. Other names that are often mentioned include Ashraf Ghani and Ali Jalali, both Pushtuns living in America who once served under Mr Karzai, as finance and interior ministers respectively. But many believe that Afghan exiles, no matter how able as technocrats, lack credibility; Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, calls them “dog-washers”. Such misgivings would be even more true of a man the subject of much intriguing speculation: Zalmay Khalilzad, a former American ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations, who is said to have put out feelers about running. Would any of these have what it takes to play the tribal game and, as a businessman puts it, “kiss bearded guys who have never brushed their teeth”?
One who certainly could is Gul Agha Sherzai, a former warlord and governor of Kandahar, a successful governor of Nangarhar, now largely free of opium poppy. When Mr Obama visited Afghanistan last year, Mr Sherzai was the first Afghan leader he met. But the governor would be a brave choice. Diplomats describe him as a controversial figure, and speak of many (unproven) lurid stories about him.
Nature abhors Some would like to see a grand multi-ethnic coalition take on Mr Karzai. One idea that is gaining ground is to change the constitutional balance by, say, creating a prime minister who would share authority with the president. This might offer an elegant way of stripping Mr Karzai of power while honouring him as a “father of the nation”, and reassuring him about his family's safety and the interests of the Popolzai.
Such a move, however, would require prolonged bargaining and a further postponement of the elections. This could allow other problems to be tackled, not least the devolution of some central-government powers to the provinces, which at present cannot raise funds or set spending priorities. It might also allow Mr Holbrooke to negotiate a new regional compact which, if successful, might help stabilise Afghanistan. A new dispensation may also help entice at least some Taliban commanders over to the government's side.
But the risks are obvious. The time-consuming effort to reach a more ambitious political settlement could create a bigger and more dangerous vacuum, with even less certainty that it will be filled by anything more acceptable than Mr Karzai.
Back to Top
Back to Top
We must help Afghanistan find a government that works
Telegraph, UK By Con Coughlin 02/13/2009
Britain and America need to adopt a new strategy to solve the country's problems, writes Con Coughlin.
There was a time when the mere suggestion that the Black Watch was about to be deployed to a conflict zone was sufficient to persuade the local populace to throw down its weapons and run for the hills. In the regiment's proud 300-year history, there was rarely an instance where the legendary Highlanders did not distinguish themselves by their valour and bravery, whether helping to quell the Indian Mutiny or going head to head with the Mahdi's fanatical tribesmen in Egypt.
Now known by the altogether more prosaic title 3 Scots (the Black Watch became a battalion in the newly created the Royal Regiment of Scotland in 2006), the heirs to this illustrious tradition are shortly to deploy to the killing fields of southern Afghanistan, where their presence is unlikely to deter one of the most resourceful and deadly insurgencies the British Army has faced for decades.
It is now three-and-a-half years since the Government committed its first brigade to Afghanistan, as part of Nato's mission to rebuild the country after three decades of civil strife. But as our Armed Forces prepare to undertake their latest six-monthly roulement of men and equipment to Helmand province, the new Scottish arrivals will find that the threat posed by the Taliban remains as potent today as it did in the summer of 2006.
Taliban commanders may have been obliged to undertake a radical change of tactics, but they continue to inflict a steady stream of casualties. 3 Commando Brigade, the contingent of predominantly Royal Marines currently deployed in Afghanistan, has suffered about 20 fatalities during its six-month tour, which is about the same attrition rate experienced by the six British brigades that have so far served in Afghanistan.
And even though British forces now being deployed to frontline fighting duties in southern Afghanistan are finally being given the equipment and training they require to endure some of the world's most challenging combat terrain, the task of keeping a determined and resourceful enemy at bay has not got any easier.
Indeed, the coalition's failure to provide even the most basic level of security in Afghanistan – Taliban suicide bombers killed 20 people in well-orchestrated attacks in Kabul earlier this week – the fear stalking many British officials is that the Afghan campaign could soon find itself facing unfavourable comparisons with Britain's six-year involvement in Iraq.
It can be hard to remember now, but the Iraq campaign began well, with British forces easily securing Basra and the southern provinces following Saddam Hussein's overthrow. The mission only unravelled after British commanders either took their eye off the ball, or seriously underestimated the ability of insurgents to make trouble.
In Afghanistan, the British military has not even had the benefit of enjoying that initial success. From the moment the first British soldiers set foot in Helmand they have had their backs against the wall. And though the coalition has inflicted a series of heavy defeats, the fact that the Taliban continues to pose the single greatest threat to Afghanistan's broader security is a serious indictment of the Nato effort to rebuild the country. This is a fact that the new American administration of President Barack Obama is trying to come to grips with.
It's not just that the Taliban remains a serious security threat. There is also the failure of the government of Afghan president Hamid Karzai to assert its authority over those areas of the country that have been freed from Taliban control. And then there is the continuing refusal of many major European governments to provide combat troops. All have undermined the operation's effectiveness to the extent that Richard Holbrooke, the new US special envoy to Afghanistan, believes a radical overhaul of strategy and objectives is needed to avoid mission failure.
American officials have already signalled a shift in policy from the Bush administration's somewhat heavy-handed attempts to impose western-style democracy on a country which is essentially medieval in outlook. From now on, the priority is to provide the Afghans with a government that works, rather than one that mirrors the West.
The decision to appoint Mr Holbrooke and his British counterpart, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the current British ambassador to Kabul, to handle Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single security issue, rather than separate problems, is also a refreshing new take on how to resolve the crisis. The Taliban's ability to move men and equipment freely between the two countries is one of the main reasons it remains such a threat. Recognising basic truths such as this will go a long way to formulating a strategy for Afghanistan that might actually succeed.
That said, the biggest problem is finding an Afghan government that will take responsibility for running the country. That won't happen so long as the unreliable Mr Karzai holds power. Over to you, Mr Holbrooke.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan: Australian troops 'condemned' for civilian deaths
Kabul, 13 Feb. (AKI) - Afghanistan on Friday condemned the killing of civilians in a raid conducted by Australian soldiers without any local forces in the south of the country. The Australian defence ministry said five children had been killed in a shootout between Taliban insurgents and Australian Special Forces in southern Uruzgan province on Thursday, where soldiers were "clearing" a number of compounds.
The Afghan defence ministry said one woman and two children were killed and eight other people were wounded in the attack.
"The defense ministry condemns the martyring of one woman and two children and the wounding of eight others ... in an operation by international forces ... and asks international forces not to conduct operations without the coordination of Afghan forces," the ministry said in a statement.
The commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) under which Australian troops operate issued a directive last September saying soldiers should not enter an Afghan house or mosque uninvited without having the lead from the Afghan army unless troops were in "clear danger".
The strong statement from Afghanistan came as Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy, was due to begin talks with Afghan leaders in Kabul.
The visit by Holbrooke, the US special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, comes as president Hamid Karzai faces increased pressure from Washington to defeat a resurgent Taliban and militants from Al-Qaeda.
Holbrooke is expected to meet Afghanistan's defence and interior ministers before holding talks with Karzai on Saturday.
Back to Top
Back to Top
5 children killed during Australian operation in Afghanistan
By Richard A. Oppel Jr. International Herald Tribune Friday, February 13, 2009
KABUL;: Five children were killed in predawn fighting Thursday between Australian special operations troops and Taliban guerrillas in south-central Afghanistan, the latest incident of rising civilian casualties that have hurt support for American and NATO troops here.
The skirmish, which occurred in darkness in a village called Sarmorghab in Oruzgan Province, north of Kandahar, was condemned by the provincial governor, Assadullah Hamdam, who said it would have a "negative effect." He also said provincial officials had already pleaded with troops not to carry out raids where civilians are present.
The deaths come amid a growing chorus of complaints about civilian casualties from Afghan officials, including President Hamid Karzai, as well as new fears that plans to add as many as 30,000 more American troops will only lead to more such fatalities.
Afghan leaders will press their case over the next few days with Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Holbrooke, who arrived in Afghanistan on Thursday after visiting Pakistan, is expected to meet with Karzai and perhaps a dozen other senior Afghan political leaders and parliamentarians, as well as with United Nations and American and NATO officials.
A statement by the Australian military about the Oruzgan deaths said the Australian troops began shooting after they were attacked by Taliban insurgents. "A number of people have been killed and wounded during this incident," the statement said. In addition to the five children, a "suspected insurgent" was killed and two children and two civilians were also wounded. None of the Australian troops were hurt.
The Australian military said it had launched an investigation but that its troops had operated "in accordance with the rules of engagement." A senior Australian military official, Lieutenant General Mark Evans, declined to answer questions from reporters about how so many children could die in one incident, or whether the children were killed by shots fired on the ground or whether they died from an air strike called in by the troops.
Hamdam offered a different casualty toll, saying three children had been killed and four wounded after a sustained firefight. He said he did not know the condition of the wounded children, who he said were taken for treatment to Kandahar Province.
The Australian "forces claimed that they had killed one Taliban commander, then we later found out that three children were killed in crossfire in one of the houses," Hamdam said. "This kind of killing actually brings negative effects on the thoughts of residents of Oruzgan."
In a separate incident, the American military command in Kabul said a serviceman had also been killed in Oruzgan Province on Thursday. The service member, whose military branch was not identified, was killed by "enemy fire during a combat reconnaissance patrol." An Afghan soldier was also wounded.
Taimoor Shah reported from Kandahar,
Back to Top
Back to Top
Last Russian general warns US on Afghanistan
By Associated Press Friday, February 13, 2009
MOSCOW — Twenty years after Red Army troops pulled out of Afghanistan, the last general to command them says the Soviets’ devastating experience is a dismal omen for U.S. plans to build up troops there.
On Friday, the anniversary of the Soviet departure from the Afghan capital, the Russian parliament’s lower house adopted a resolution honoring the soldiers who "were faithful to the warrior’s duty, who displayed heroism, bravery and patriotism."
In retired Gen. Boris Gromov’s view, the valor was shown in an unwinnable battle.
"Afghanistan taught us an invaluable lesson ... It has been and always will be impossible to solve political problems using force," said Gromov, the last soldier to leave Afghanistan two days after the Kabul pullout.
He told reporters that U.S. plans to send thousands of new troops to Afghanistan would make no difference against a resurgent Taliban, who came to power in 1996 in the chaos after the Soviet withdrawal.
"One can increase the forces or not — it won’t lead to anything but a negative result," Gromov said.
The parliament resolution credited the Red Army with the "repulsion of international terrorism and narcotics trade" and "averting a breeding ground for a new war" on Russia’s border.
That appeared to blame Afghanistan’s current fighting and soaring opium trade on the U.S.-led military operation launched in 2001 against the Taliban. Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has made the same suggestion recently, saying the alliance has repeated the Soviet Union’s mistakes in Afghanistan and added its own.
The Soviet Union lost some 15,000 soldiers in the war, which began when Moscow sent in troops to battle guerrillas who were fighting a Soviet-supported government. The invasion brought international opprobrium on the Soviet Union — including a boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow by countries including the United States, China and Japan.
It also shocked millions of Soviets who had been taught their massive military was the world’s most potent, but saw their heavy equipment and powerful weaponry overwhelmed by ragged, Western-backed insurgents.
"I don’t see any sense in that war," veteran Oleg Samoilov told Associated Press Television News. "What did we do, what did we achieve? Practically nothing. There were only dead people left, our dead comrades, their mothers and widows — and that’s it."
Russia has given nominal support to the international anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan, but did not send troops, and there are mixed signals on how fully it backs the operation.
This month, Moscow authorized a $2.15 billion package of aid to Kyrgyzstan that is widely seen as the key factor in the Kyrgyz president’s announcement that a U.S. base will be closed. The base is an important transit point for coalition troops and cargo for Afghanistan and is the home to tanker planes that refuel warplanes over Afghanistan.
But Russia has granted some coalition countries permission to ship Afghanistan-bound military supplies through its territory; Germany even has permission to ship weaponry.
Washington and Moscow are negotiating a deal for the United States to use Russian territory to send supplies to Afghanistan through Russia; news reports this week cited Foreign Ministry officials as saying only some minor details remain to be worked out.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov this week suggested such cooperation could be expanded to allow weapons shipments if the United States shows good faith — presumably an indication that Russia would press Washington hard for concessions on sensitive issues such as NATO expansion and the controversial proposal to put U.S. missile defense elements in Eastern Europe.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Viacom's ex-CEO on Kabul's front lines
CNN Money February 12, 2009
While the global economic crisis consumes our focus, did you realize that Afghanistan is sliding into greater chaos? Yesterday, on the eve of U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke's visit, Taliban suicide bombers and gunmen attacked three government sites in Kabul and killed 19 people.
Personally, the news out of Kabul captivates me because I've been there. It was January 2003, and I was part of the first official delegation of women - a dozen women, mainly from the Bush Administration and the business world - to visit after the Taliban was defeated. At least back then, we thought the Taliban was defeated.
Through the Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit, which I chair, we did humanitarian work, building a women's resource center in Kabul. And then recently, Afghanistan came back into sharp focus for me thanks to a man I profile in the current issue of Fortune: Tom Freston.
Freston, CEO of Viacom (VIAB) until he got the boot by chairman Sumner Redstone in 2006, considers Kabul his third home - after New York City and Los Angeles, where he's now working with Oprah Winfrey. (See “Behind Oprah's new TV venture.”) Freston lived in Kabul for six years until 1978, when the communists took over and he returned stateside to help start MTV. He's been back to Afghanistan three times - for two months altogether - recently and is now making films there, doing humanitarian work and also funding a new Afghanistan program at the New York-based Asia Society. “Tom is way ahead of the curve in understanding Afghanistan's complexities,” says Holbrooke, Barack Obama's point man for the region.
Given the latest chaos and Freston's expertise, it's worth sharing a few of his observations from my interviews and from a breakfast he hosted at the Asia Society:
“In 1972, when I came into Kabul from Iran, it was tranquil, peaceful, safe, tolerant,” he says. “There were Sikhs, Jews, and Hindus living beside Muslims, and even women in miniskirts. I fell in love with the people.” Three decades later, returning for the first time since 1978, “I feel like Rip Van Winkle. I found a country tortured, broken, yearning for peace, yearning for connection with the modern world.”
“Most people you meet put an increasing amount of blame on President Karzai,” he notes. “They view [his period of rule] as opportunity lost. There's very little security or justice. The people view the local police as corrupt and almost a predatory force.”
Is he ever in danger? Yes, but he doesn't let it faze him. “The Serena Hotel - which used to be the Kabul Hotel, a five-star hotel - right after the second time I stayed there, a suicide bomber killed eight people.”
“What you see is a rat's nest - the Taliban, war lords, drug dealers and a corrupt government. But you also have people with great determination to have better lives. People are doing business. It's an anomaly to me. As security declines, business seems to be getting better. The media sector is exploding. And the media are great forces for change.”
“The cell phone market is huge,” Freston, 63, adds. “There are four carriers. Under the Taliban, 1% of households had land lines. Now 40% have cell phones. The Taliban was blowing up cell towers, but they backed off because they needed cell phones too.”
P.S. Freston is glad to be gone from Viacom, which today reported a 69% drop in fourth-quarter net income due to $454 million in restructuring charges. For more on his post-Viacom life, see yesterday's Postcard, “Tom Freston's Supreme Court Surprise.”
Back to Top
Back to Top
Karzai: U.S. troops can't leave Afghanistan soon
CNN 13 February 2009
President Hamid Karzai said that with a resurgent Taliban, a still-flourishing drug trade and a border with Pakistan believed to be home base for al Qaeda, Afghanistan can't afford for U.S. troops to leave any time soon.
"U.S. forces will not be able to leave soon in Afghanistan because the task is not over," Karzai said in an interview on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," scheduled to air Sunday. "We have to defeat terrorism. We'll have to enable Afghanistan to stand on its own feet. We'll have to enable Afghanistan to be able to defend itself and protect for its security.
"Then, the United States can leave and, at that time, the Afghan people will give them plenty of flowers and gratitude and send them safely back home."
Karzai's comments come as President Barack Obama plans to send another 30,000 troops to fight what he's called the "central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism."
At the same time, Karzai said, the actions of troops in Afghanistan have turned some of the public against them. Watch the interview with Karzai »
"It's the question of civilian causalities. It's a question of risk of Afghans. It's the question of home searches," he said. "These activities are seriously undermining the confidence of the Afghan people in the joint struggle we have against terrorism and undermining their hopeful future.
"We'll continue to be a friend. We'll continue to be an ally. But Afghanistan deserves respect and a better treatment."
While he said he welcomes additional U.S. troops, Karzai suggested they need to work along the Afghan-Pakistan border and in the poppy fields that fuel a drug trade that threatens to turn the nation into a narco-state -- not in the villages where most Afghans live.
"We have traveled many years on. What should have happened early on didn't, unfortunately, happen," Karzai said. "Now, the country is not in the same mood as it was in 2002. And so any addition of troops must have a purposeful objective that the Afghan people would agree with."
The Obama administration is conducting several reviews of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, including a review by Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in the region. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the original mission in Afghanistan was "too broad" and needs to be more "realistic and focused" for the United States to succeed.
"If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money," Gates said during a recent Senate hearing.
He called for concrete goals that can be reached in three to five years.
Speaking via satellite from Kabul, Karzai called former President George Bush "a great person," but said he can work with Obama despite the president's comments as a candidate that Karzai had "not gotten out of the bunker" to improve security and infrastructure in Afghanistan.
"President Obama is a great inspiration to the world," he said. "The people of America have proven that they can really be the light holders for change and the will of the people in the world.
"And his coming to power by the vote of the American people is a manifestation of that great power of the American people."
Karzai also acknowledged corruption in the Afghan government, but defended the work he's done to combat it.
"Sure, corruption in the Afghan government is as much there as in any other Third World country," he said.
"Suddenly this country got so much money coming from the West, suddenly so many Afghans came from all over the world to participate. Suddenly there were projects -- suddenly there was this poverty that turned into some sort form of prosperity for this country," he said.
He said a government department has been created to deal with corruption and that corrupt judges, administrators and other officials are dismissed "daily" over corruption charges.
Back to Top
Back to Top
£2.6bn Cost Of War In Afghanistan
SkyNews via Yahoo! UK & Ireland News - Feb 13 12:17 AM
The cost of Britain's military operations in Afghanistan soared by more than two-thirds to £2.6bn last year. Skip related content
The Ministry of Defence said the increased costs reflected moves to ensure troops were "properly trained, equipped and supported".
The figure for 2008/9 was up from £1.5bn in 2007/8.
It comes as the UK is expected to face pressure from the US to boost its commitments in the fight against the Taliban.
Operations in Afghanistan accounted for more than half of the MoD's estimated £4.536bn cost of operations across Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans.
The MoD said the cash would come from the Treasury's special reserve rather than the core MoD budget.
Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey urged the Government to ensure British troops would finally be withdrawn from Basra, where operations were costing millions of pounds a day, "as soon as possible".
Gordon Brown announced in December that Britain's work in southern Iraq would be done within the next few months.
Mr Harvey added: "Unfortunately, the military price tag will not in itself bring success in Afghanistan.
"We need to see all Nato allies pulling their weight, alongside greater involvement of regional partners, including Iran, to create a stable Afghanistan."
An MoD spokesman said the Government was committed to ensuring commanders had all the resources they needed to do the job.
"That includes significant levels of spending on new equipment and equipment upgrades through the Urgent Operational Requirements (UOR) process," the spokesman said.
"This is new money over and above the core defence budget from the Treasury Special Reserve.
"To date, we have approved over £4bn on emerging UORs for Iraq and Afghanistan since operations began."
Back to Top
Back to Top
FACTBOX-Security developments in Afghanistan, Feb 13
13 Feb 2009 11:39:37 GMT
Feb 13 (Reuters) - Following are security developments in Afghanistan at 1130 GMT on Friday:
URUZGAN - Australian Special Forces killed five children during a raid on several compounds in southern Uruzgan province on Thursday, 300 km (190 miles) southwest of Kabul, after coming under fire, the Australian Defence Force said.
The Afghan Defence Ministry condemned the operation it said killed one woman and two children and wounded eight people, and called for international forces to coordinate all raids with Afghan security forces.
URUZGAN - A soldier from the U.S.-led coalition force was killed by insurgent fire during a patrol in Uruzgan province on Thursday, the U.S. military said. (Compiled by Jonathon Burch; Editing by Sugita Katyal)
Back to Top
Back to Top
In Pakistan, U.S. Special Envoy Finds Discontent
The New York Times By JANE PERLEZ 13 February 2009
LAHORE, Pakistan - The American special envoy, Richard C. Holbrooke, wound down his whistle-stop tour of Pakistan on Wednesday with a brief visit to the lawless tribal areas, and then dinner with liberal intellectuals at a rooftop restaurant here in Lahore.
He had come to listen, not to lecture, Mr. Holbrooke said. What he heard was a familiar list of requests for more money and arms from Pakistan's top leadership, as well as a litany of complaints about American airstrikes in Pakistan's tribal areas using Predator drones.
Mr. Holbrooke's trip to Pakistan, and his four-day tour of Afghanistan, which is scheduled to begin Thursday, was part of a top-to-bottom review of American policy in the region ordered by President Obama.
The challenge for the new administration is how to persuade a Pakistani military fixated on its archenemy India to reorient its troops to fight the Qaeda and Taliban insurgency that is engulfing the country.
Washington also wants to convince the poorly organized and almost bankrupt civilian government, led by President Asif Ali Zardari, that it must support the military in its counterinsurgency efforts by providing proper governance and development.
As part of his tour in the capital, Islamabad, Mr. Holbrooke met with Mr. Zardari; the military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani; and the head of Inter-Services Intelligence, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha.
Officials familiar with the conversations say Mr. Holbrooke was faced with universal opposition to the Predator strikes, which American officials say have helped disrupt the Qaeda network.
The Pakistanis insist that the drone strikes have killed civilians, further turned public feeling against the United States, and represent an infringement of their sovereignty.
What, if anything, the Obama administration plans to do about the protests over the missile attacks was not clear, officials said.
A retired Pakistani general, Talat Masood, who attended a dinner in honor of Mr. Holbrooke at the American Embassy on Tuesday night, said he got the impression that there may be some effort by the Americans to make the drone strikes more palatable by conducting them as a joint operation.
The foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, called the attacks “counterproductive” and said that Pakistan and the United States would form a joint team of officials to review policy differences, including the missile attacks.
As well as voice opposition to the missile strikes, General Kayani asked for more equipment for the army's counterinsurgency efforts, which the Pakistanis have long asserted they have been denied by Washington. “We are crying hoarsely,” General Kayani's spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said of the request that was made to Mr. Holbrooke.
Mr. Zardari, who is presiding over a crumbling economy on life support from the International Monetary Fund, made a major pitch for immediate American economic assistance, officials said.
On Wednesday morning, Mr. Holbrooke flew in a helicopter over the mountainous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where supplies for American and NATO troops in Afghanistan have come under attack from militants in recent months.
He was then flown over the Bajaur and Mohmand areas of the tribal belt, where the Pakistani Army is fighting the Taliban.
He landed at Ghalanai, the small town that serves as the capital of Mohmand, and heard from the government's chief representative, Amjad Ali Khan, how the civilian authorities were using the persuasion of local tribes to bring young men who had joined the Taliban back into the fold.
But as the government was showing Mr. Holbrooke its best efforts against the insurgents, a car bomb killed a popular provincial legislator in Peshawar, the chaotic capital of the North-West Frontier Province. The politician, Alam Zeb Khan, was driving to inspect a development project in the city, his supporters said, when a remote-controlled bomb blew up his car.
For a sense of how the insurgency is affecting people, Mr. Holbrooke met in Peshawar with a group of women from nongovernment organizations.
A young woman who lived in Swat, an area where the army has virtually lost control to the Taliban, told Mr. Holbrooke how the Taliban had killed her husband. The women of Swat, she told him, were confined to their houses, were not allowed to go shopping, and lived in fear of the Taliban, who spread their message through FM radio.
Though Mr. Holbrooke was accompanied by the deputy commander of the United States Central Command, Maj. General John R. Allen, the high-profile visit by a civilian envoy could change the tone of the conversation with Pakistan, said Ahmed Rashid, the author of a recent book on Pakistan and Afghanistan, called “Descent into Chaos,” who attended the dinner with Mr. Holbrooke in the old town in Lahore.
“This is a complete sea change in what Pakistan is used to,” said Mr. Rashid, who was invited to Washington just before the inauguration to attend a small foreign policy dinner with Mr. Obama.
“There is a suspicion in the American establishment that the Pakistani Army has found it easier to pull the wool over the eyes of the American military. It will be harder to do that with the civilians.”
On Thursday, before leaving for Afghanistan, Mr. Holbrooke is scheduled to meet Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N who served as prime minister twice in the 1990s.
Mr. Sharif holds some sympathies with the Islamic parties, and, as a rival of Mr. Zardari's, he is considered an important figure for the Americans because he would like to maneuver his way to power in the coming year.
Back to Top
Disclaimer:
This news site is mostly a compilation of publicly accessible articles
on the Web in the form of a link or saved news item. The news articles
and commentaries/editorials are protected under international copyright
laws. All credit goes to the original respective source(s).