 |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serving you since 1998 | ||||||||||||
|
|
Afghan body throws out ballots from 83 vote sites
By Heidi Vogt And Jason Straziuso, Associated Press Writers
KABUL – The U.N.-backed commission investigating fraud in Afghanistan's election issued its first orders Thursday to exclude some ballots from the final tally, throwing out votes from 83 polling stations in areas of strong support for President Hamid Karzai.
Fraud watchdog annuls votes in Afghan election
By Maria Golovnina
KABUL (Reuters) – A U.N. panel annulled ballots from dozens of polling stations in Afghanistan's presidential election on Thursday, kicking off a lengthy fraud investigation that could keep Afghans locked in political uncertainty for months.
Afghan election process 'biased'
By David Loyn BBC News, Kabul Thursday, 10 September 2009 04:46 UK
'The real outcome should come out'
The main challenger in the Afghan election has claimed the body carrying out the count is being manipulated by the incumbent President Hamid Karzai.
Afghanistan's Abdullah warns of instability after poll
Thu Sep 10, 5:12 am ET
LONDON (Reuters) – The main challenger in Afghanistan's disputed election has accused the commission counting the vote of bias in favor of President Hamid Karzai.
Karzai defends Afghanistan election as honest
By Maria Golovnina – Wed Sep 9, 5:16 pm ET
KABUL (Reuters) – Incumbent Hamid Karzai defended last month's Afghan presidential election as honest on Wednesday, a day after returns showed him set to win in a single round and a U.N-backed panel ordered a partial recount.
Afghan Election Commission Defends Release of Tainted Votes
By Steve Herman VOA News New Delhi 09 September 2009
Afghanistan's government-appointed election commission is denying bowing to political pressure to include a large number of tainted ballots in its preliminary polling results. The disputed votes have helped push
Karzai leads Afghan vote, but election watchdog finds fraud
The Independent Election Commission said preliminary results gave Karzai 54.1 percent of the vote. But a UN-backed vote monitor ordered a partial recount, citing evidence of fraud.
By Aunohita Mojumdar | Christian Science Monitor Correspondent 09.08.09
KABUL, AFGHANISTAN – Preliminary election results announced today put incumbent president Hamid Karzai firmly in the winning stable even while the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) questioned
Afghanistan Election Dispute Rises to Top of Clinton’s Agenda
By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan
Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Afghanistan has “moved to the top” of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s agenda since evidence of widespread fraud emerged from last month’s presidential election, the State Department said today.
Obama's Afghan Election Failure
The Washington Post By Jim Hoagland 09/10/2009
The aftermath of Afghanistan's elections has been uglier and more consequential than the campaign that preceded the voting. It has become clear that President Hamid Karzai's bid for reelection was tainted by widespread fraud,
No 10 defends Afghanistan rescue
Thursday, 10 September 2009 14:42 UK BBC News
Downing Street has defended the decision to rescue a British journalist kidnapped in Afghanistan, saying it was "the best chance of saving life".
Criticism over journalist rescue in Afghanistan
by Lynne O'donnell – Thu Sep 10, 5:52 am ET
KABUL (AFP) – Criticism mounted Thursday over the dramatic airborne rescue from Taliban territory of a kidnapped Western journalist who walked free as four others, including a British soldier, were killed.
Commandos free kidnapped journalist in Afghanistan
by Lynne O'donnell – Wed Sep 9, 10:32 am ET
KABUL (AFP) – NATO commandos on Wednesday rescued a New York Times reporter held by the Taliban in Afghanistan in an airborne raid that left his Afghan colleague, two civilians and a British soldier dead, officials said.
Govt approved Afghanistan rescue
Thu Sep 10, 7:12 am ET
LONDON (AFP) – British ministers approved the rescue of a kidnapped Western journalist from Taliban territory which resulted in four people being killed, Downing Street confirmed Thursday.
Warning of Further Kidnappings Issued in Afghanistan
By Steve Herman VOA 10 September 2009
Security experts are warning more abductions of reporters and other foreign personnel are likely in the war-torn country, following the kidnapping and controversial rescue of a British journalist in Afghanistan.
Afghan journalists boycott Taliban activities over murdering colleague
KABUL, Sept. 10 (Xinhua) -- Media Club of Afghanistan (MCA), an association of journalists, on Thursday condemned the kidnapping of their colleague Sultan Mohammad Munadi by Taliban militants
Afghan MCA calls on gov't to punish culprits behind journalist murder
KABUL, Sept. 10 (Xinhua) -- Media Club of Afghanistan (MCA), an association of journalists, on Thursday strongly condemned the killing of New York Times reporter Sultan Ahmad Munadi, calling on government
Afghan Governor Lashes Out at Central Govt.
Written by Farhad Balkhi Quqnoos September 10, 2009
An influential Afghan governor has accused the central government of destabilising security in his province by arming local commanders
Taliban presence seen across almost all Afghanistan
By Paul Tait
SINGAPORE (Reuters) – The Taliban have a significant presence in almost every corner of Afghanistan, data from a policy think tank showed on Thursday, as the country lurches into political uncertainty after a disputed presidential election.
A primer on Afghanistan's political situation, and the U.S. role
Los Angeles Times By Michael Muskal September 9, 2009
As charges of election fraud surround Afghanistan's recent presidential vote, Obama is considering his next steps in that country. Here's some background, and what Obama faces.
European Leaders Call for Conference to Assess Progress in Afghanistan
By Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 10, 2009
The leaders of France, Britain and Germany have called for a high-level international conference on Afghanistan, saying it is time to "take stock of progress . . . and to evaluate the challenges that lie ahead."
Afghanistan: Now the political fighting breaks out
By Andrew Grice, The Independent (UK)Political Editor Thursday, 10 September 2009
The Prime Minister's strategy on Afghanistan is under mounting pressure from all three of the main parties as the political consensus on the war begins to crack.
Careerists Pull Obama to Afghan Mess
Middle East Online - Sep 10 4:07 AM
Sadly, nothing has changed in Afghanistan, where Afghan civilians are being killed in NATO bombing raids that continue to demonstrate a cavalier attitude toward protecting the innocent from US fighter planes. Once again
Afghan police find Iranian-made weapons, source says
By Barbara Starr
(CNN) -- Afghan National Police have seized a stockpile of Iranian-made weapons in the western Afghan city of Herat, a senior U.S. military official confirmed to CNN Thursday.
Canadian governor general visits troops in Afghanistan
Wed Sep 9, 7:27 pm ET
MONTREAL (AFP) – Canada's Governor General Michaelle Jean visited Canadian troops serving in the Kandahar province of Afghanistan Wednesday, rounding out a two-day visit to the country, her office said.
Embassy to mimic Afghan battleground
By Joseph Weber The Washington Times - Sep 09 8:52 PM
The courtyard of the Canadian Embassy, in the heart of the District, will become a combat scene later this month, with mock Taliban forces detonating improvised explosive devices inside a simulated Afghan village.
Prosecutor eyeing war crimes in Afghanistan
By Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press Writer – Wed Sep 9, 6:56 pm ET
UNITED NATIONS – The prosecutor for the International Criminal Court said Wednesday he is collecting information on possible war crimes by NATO forces and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
All for Nothing
Newsweek By Ron Moreau 09/10/2009
President Hamid Karzai didn't need to steal the election—he would have won anyway.
AFGHANISTAN: Crackdown on Kabul beggars continues
10 Sep 2009 13:40:41 GMT
KABUL, 10 September 2009 (IRIN) - Afghanistan's anti-begging commission has arrested hundreds of beggars in Kabul in the past few months, but most are released if relatives guarantee they will not beg again, officials said.
Collateral damage of every sort
Sep 10th 2009 | BERLIN AND KUNDUZ From The Economist print edition
The West’s mission in Afghanistan is under attack on many fronts
WITH tension high after a difficult and partly rigged election, the last thing NATO forces in Afghanistan needed was for scores of Afghan civilians to be killed by yet another fumbled attack
Here's what happens when the winners lose
Chicago Tribune By Robert C. Koehler 09/10/2009
The situation in Afghanistan is serious. We're getting "out-governed" by an enemy so ruthless it's bringing services to a desperate people ignored by the legitimate government we installed.
Afghanistan: Judge deplores violence against women
Rome, 10 Sept. (AKI) - The scourge of violence suffered by Afghan women is a grave problem that requires decisive action, according to one of the country's magistrates.
Taliban prefer not to be known as Taliban
PakTribune.Com Thursday September 10, 2009
PESHAWAR - Afghan Taliban prefer their organisation to be known as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan instead of being simply called Taliban.
US bans alcohol at army bases in Afghanistan
Press TV September 9, 2009
A top US commander has banned alcohol at its headquarters in Kabul after troops were found to be too drunk in the wake of a recent deadly air strike in Afghanistan.
Former manager says ArmorGroup lowballed bid, cut corners on embassy security in Afghanistan
Associated Press September 10, 2009 - 8:19 AM
WASHINGTON - A former manager for the security contractor protecting the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan says the company lowballed its bid for the work and then failed to hire enough guards or fix faulty equipment.
U.K. Majority Opposes Afghanistan Involvement, Poll Indicates
By Alan Purkiss
Sept. 10 (Bloomberg) -- British troops should never have been sent to Afghanistan, according to 53 percent of people questioned in an ICM public-opinion poll carried out for the National Army Museum, the London-based Times reported.
Texas couple pleads guilty in Afghanistan fraud
Thursday September 10, 2009, 9:09 am EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Houston couple has pleaded guilty in an alleged plot to defraud the U.S. while working as contractors on rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan.
Spain sets five-year target for Afghan withdrawal
MADRID, Sept. 9 (Xinhua) -- Spanish Defense Minister Carme Chacon said on Wednesday that she hoped the country would be able to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan within five years.
Pakistani president rejects Obama's Pakistan-Afghan policy
ISLAMABAD, Sept. 10 (Xinhua) -- Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has rejected U.S. President Obama's strategy of linking policy on Pakistan and Afghanistan in an effort to end the Taliban insurgency, the local NNI news agency reported Thursday.
Back to Top
Afghan body throws out ballots from 83 vote sites
By Heidi Vogt And Jason Straziuso, Associated Press Writers
KABUL – The U.N.-backed commission investigating fraud in Afghanistan's election issued its first orders Thursday to exclude some ballots from the final tally, throwing out votes from 83 polling stations in areas of strong support for President Hamid Karzai.
The Aug. 20 poll has been increasingly marred by reports of ballot-box stuffing and suspicious tallies. A U.S. monitoring group has said "large numbers of polling stations" had more than 100 percent turnout and President Hamid Karzai's top challenger has accused him of "state-engineered" fraud.
Karzai currently has more than 50 percent of the preliminary vote count. But if the commission throws out enough votes, he could drop below 50 percent and be forced into a run-off.
The Electoral Complaints Commission threw out ballots at 51 sites in Kandahar, 27 in Ghazni and five in Paktika. All three provinces are dominated by ethnic Pashtuns and are areas where Karzai, also an ethnic Pashtun, would expect to do well. The commission did not say how many overall votes were nullified.
Throwing out ballots is a more severe step than ordering a recount, in which the votes could eventually be included. The commission also ordered some votes to be recounted in Ghazni.
Decisions by the commission are final under Afghanistan's electoral law. The group is releasing decisions from each province as investigations finish. The U.N.-backed commission is comprised of one American, one Canadian, one Dutch, and two Afghans.
International censure of the vote has increased since Tuesday, when election officials released preliminary results from 92 percent of polling stations showing Karzai with 54.1 percent, far ahead of top challenger Abdullah Abdullah, who had 28.3 percent. Tuesday's partial results were the first to show Karzai surpassing the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff.
Election officials have said they expect to release full results Saturday, but these will not be deemed official until all fraud complaints have been investigated and any re-counts are finished.
The complaints commission ordered an audit and recount countrywide of stations where turnout was at or above 100 percent, or where one candidate won more than 95 percent of the vote.
The Washington, D.C.-based National Democratic Institute said its analysis of results found large numbers of stations with more than 600 votes — the 100 percent mark — in Nuristan, Paktia, Helmand and Badghis provinces, along with others.
These are areas considered some of the least secure on polling day and in which anecdotal accounts of nearly empty polling stations suggested low voter turnout. Few international observers went to these areas because of security risks.
Though there are no official turnout figures from the Aug. 20 poll, government officials and independent observers have generally said voters showed up only in low numbers because of Taliban threats ahead of the vote and attacks on election day.
Dozens of people were killed amid rocket bombardments, bombings and polling station raids.
The monitoring group said it had "deep concern" over the high levels of fraud complaints pouring in. The Electoral Complaints Commission has received more than 2,800 complaints about polling day and the counting process, of which 726 have been deemed serious and specific enough to affect polling station results.
"It will be impossible to determine the will of the Afghan people," unless fraud complaints are thoroughly investigated, it said in a statement.
The group had more than 100 international and Afghan observers in 19 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces. It did not have observers in many of the provinces where it saw problems in the results, but the figures have been posted on the Web.
Election officials have said they are holding back suspicious results, but they appear to be using a different metric than the separate complaints commission because voting center results in which candidates won more than 95 percent of the vote have been posted, along with stations that have tallies higher than 600.
The National Democratic Institute says it is a nonpartisan organization aimed at strengthening democratic institutions. It is funded partly by private donations and the U.S. and other governments.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Fraud watchdog annuls votes in Afghan election
By Maria Golovnina
KABUL (Reuters) – A U.N. panel annulled ballots from dozens of polling stations in Afghanistan's presidential election on Thursday, kicking off a lengthy fraud investigation that could keep Afghans locked in political uncertainty for months.
The August 20 election has alarmed the West whose troops are involved in an increasingly unpopular military mission. President Hamid Karzai, on course to win in a single round unless the fraud watchdog overturns the outcome, has defended the vote as honest.
Preliminary results gave Karzai 54 percent of valid votes tallied this week -- enough to avoid a runoff with his closest rival, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah.
Western powers originally praised the ballot as a success in a country where the Taliban insurgency is now at its fiercest. However confidence in Karzai's handling of the vote has eroded as allegations of fraud have continued to mount.
An Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC), appointed mainly by the United Nations, can veto the tally and has said it has found evidence of fraud. It ordered a partial vote recount this week.
In a statement on Thursday, the ECC said it had already canceled all ballots at dozens of polling stations in Ghazni, Paktika and Kandahar provinces -- its first step in a complicated process that officials have said could last weeks, if not months.
"Investigation and subsequent decisions were taken in response to complaints received by the ECC during the polling and counting period," said the commission, run by a Canadian.
Most places included areas where pro-Karzai voting was particularly visible. In Paktika, one of the provinces, Karzai got 91.9 percent against Abdullah's 3.8 percent, according to preliminary partial results issued this week.
The ECC said it had found a number of "indicators of fraud" such as unfolded and miscounted ballots, votes for candidates inserted inside bundles for other candidates, and lists of voters with numerous fictitious card numbers.
It did not say how many votes it has invalidated in total so far. Based on preliminary results released with 91 percent of polling stations tallied, more than 400,000 ballots for Karzai would have to be annulled to require a second round.
Facing mounting diplomatic awkwardness over an election with disputed credibility, the West has distanced itself from the investigation but has expressed broad concerns.
"The European Union expects that all authorities and stakeholders will conscientiously respect the Electoral Law and refrain from pre-judging any result until it has been properly certified," said Sweden, which currently holds EU presidency.
"RECIPE FOR INSTABILITY"
These concerns have galvanized Abdullah and his supporters who have condemned the election as rigged.
"I'm not talking about just my own supporters, but those who cast their vote for Mr Karzai," Abdullah told BBC radio. "Their vote is now part of the fraud. And on top of that, a fraudulent outcome: illegitimate rule for another five years.
"I think this in itself is a recipe for instability in this country," he added.
Security and instability remain big concerns as a resurgent Taliban continue to gain strength across the country, including long-quiet and peaceful areas in northern Afghanistan.
A security map by policy research group the International Council on Security and Development has shown a deepening security crisis with substantial Taliban activity in at least 97 percent of the country.
Despite election allegations, Karzai has praised officials for carrying out the vote with "honesty and impartiality." Complete preliminary results are expected on Saturday, a spokesman for the election commission said.
The ECC has now ordered a recount from polling stations where one candidate received more than 95 percent of the vote or more votes were cast than the expected maximum of 600.
"Unless the 'clear and convincing evidence of fraud' found by the ECC is addressed, it will be impossible to determine the will of the Afghan people," the National Democratic Institute, a U.S. non-profit group which monitored the poll, said in a statement.
(Additional reporting by Jonathon Burch in KABUL, Paul Tait in SINGAPORE; Writing by Maria Golovnina; Editing by Nick Macfie)
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan election process 'biased'
By David Loyn BBC News, Kabul Thursday, 10 September 2009 04:46 UK
'The real outcome should come out'
The main challenger in the Afghan election has claimed the body carrying out the count is being manipulated by the incumbent President Hamid Karzai.
Speaking exclusively to the BBC, Abdullah Abdullah said the election commission was on the president's side.
Since the Afghan election three weeks ago, the number of claims of fraud in the voting have been rising.
As the counting goes on Mr Karzai has just passed the 50% mark that means he does not have to face a second round.
In a strongly-worded interview for the BBC, he said the election was being stolen from the Afghan people, and the Independent Election Commission was anything but independent.
"It's not independent at all; it's on President Karzai's side," said Mr Abdullah.
"It has been corrupt, and their malpractice is now widespread. I think it's not for the good of the country that somebody who commits massive fraud rules the country for (almost) five years."
Mr Abdullah said the way the election had been conducted was a recipe for instability.
"I'm not talking about just my own supporters, but those who cast their vote for Mr Karzai," he said.
"Their vote is now part of the fraud. And on top of that, a fraudulent outcome: illegitimate rule for another five years. I think this in itself is a recipe for instability in this country."
But Mr Abdullah said he still wanted a fair result to be found through peaceful channels.
Earlier this week the international body overseeing the process took their first decisive step - ordering the election commission to hold a recount wherever there were suspicious ballots - potentially opening months of arguments.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan's Abdullah warns of instability after poll
Thu Sep 10, 5:12 am ET
LONDON (Reuters) – The main challenger in Afghanistan's disputed election has accused the commission counting the vote of bias in favor of President Hamid Karzai.
In an interview with the BBC, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah said the Independent Election Commission was corrupt and helping to rig the vote in favor of Karzai.
Voters would feel cheated with a fraudulent vote and that would lead to more instability in the conflict-torn country, he said.
"It's not independent at all; it's on President Karzai's side," he said. "It has been corrupt, and their malpractice is now widespread.
"It's not for the good of the country that somebody who commits massive fraud rules the country for five years."
Karzai has defended the August 20 election as honest but the standoff has alarmed the United States and its allies, whose troops are involved in an increasingly unpopular mission.
The election is key element in Western plans to bring stability to Afghanistan and to prevent militants from using the country as a base for attacks across the globe.
More than 100,000 foreign troops in a U.S.-led coalition are deployed in the country fighting the Taliban, who were ousted from power in 2001 but whose insurgency is growing stronger.
U.S. and U.N. officials say they are waiting for the final tally and the outcome of fraud investigations before concluding whether the result is fair.
Abdullah was quoted as saying he still wanted a fair result to be found through peaceful channels.
"I'm not talking about just my own supporters, but those who cast their vote for Mr. Karzai," he told BBC radio. "Their vote is now part of the fraud. And on top of that, a fraudulent outcome: illegitimate rule for another five years.
"I think this in itself is a recipe for instability in this country."
Preliminary election results issued on Tuesday gave Karzai more than 54 percent of valid votes tallied, putting him above the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff with Abdullah.
Abdullah has said Karzai's backers have attempted to steal the ballot by stuffing ballots on a massive scale.
A separate Electoral Complaints Commission, led by a Canadian and mainly appointed by the United Nations, said it had found clear evidence of fraud and ordered a partial recount.
Western officials initially hailed the election as a success because the Taliban militants failed to scupper it.
(Reporting by Avril Ormsby; Editing by Angus MacSwan)
Back to Top
Back to Top
Karzai defends Afghanistan election as honest
By Maria Golovnina – Wed Sep 9, 5:16 pm ET
KABUL (Reuters) – Incumbent Hamid Karzai defended last month's Afghan presidential election as honest on Wednesday, a day after returns showed him set to win in a single round and a U.N-backed panel ordered a partial recount.
The standoff has alarmed Western leaders who have risked their own political capital to send troops on what is becoming an increasingly unpopular mission.
Preliminary election results issued on Tuesday gave Karzai more than 54 percent of valid votes tallied, putting him above the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff with his closest rival, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah.
But the independent Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC), appointed mainly by the United Nations, said it had found "clear and convincing" evidence of fraud and ordered a partial recount.
On Wednesday, Karzai praised the conduct of the vote.
"The president praised the (election officials) for holding the election with honesty and impartiality despite all the difficulties," the presidential palace said in a statement.
Abdullah says Karzai's backers have attempted to steal the August 20 election by stuffing ballots on a massive scale.
Early vote tables, which have been removed from the election commission's website without explanation, showed whole villages in which Karzai received every single ballot cast, sometimes with exactly 400 or 500 votes.
For now, Western officials have put their confidence in the watchdog ECC, which can overturn the result and must sign off on the outcome before it is final.
Diplomats say they are uneasy but resigned to the possibility of the U.N.-backed body reversing a result released by Afghanistan's own election authorities.
The West originally hailed the vote as a success, largely because the Taliban failed to disrupt it. Those assessments have became increasingly muted as evidence of fraud has mounted.
Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari played down concerns about the Afghan election and said in a BBC television interview he would be present if Karzai is sworn in for a new term.
MOURNING FOR MASOOD
In central Kabul, hundreds of people gathered to mourn the death of Tajik anti-Taliban hero Ahmed Shah Masood who was killed on September 9, 2001, by al-Qaeda -- a crucial rallying day for half-Tajik Abdullah who was part of Masood's inner circle.
Addressing the rally, Abdullah made no direct mention of the election but played up his link to the iconic commander.
"Masood fought for this country and died for this country," said Abdullah, whose supporters have threatened to hold protests if their election concerns were not heard. "He fought to bring peace and security to this country."
Speaking alongside Abdullah in a city festooned with Masood posters, ex-president and key ally Burhanuddin Rabbani added: "The election result must be cleaned or Afghanistan will face chaos and big challenges."
Karzai, an ethnic Pashtun who draws much of his support from his ethnic heartland in the south, did not attend the ceremony.
Locking Afghanistan into a further period of uncertainty, the ECC has ordered Afghan officials to recount results from polling stations where one candidate received more than 95 percent of the vote or more votes were cast than the expected maximum of 600.
Election officials say that could take weeks or even months.
British ambassador to Afghanistan Mark Sedwill said it was too early to judge the authenticity of the vote before the ECC had finished its process of screening ballots for fraud.
"We have to see the result of their investigations," he told BBC radio. "We always knew there would be fraud in this election, a lot of irregularities, I'm afraid that was inevitable, and we talked about that before the election."
Facing an increasingly skeptical public opinion over its role in Afghanistan, Britain on Wednesday offered to host a global conference to set targets for handing over security commitments from foreign troops to Afghan forces.
RAID FREES REPORTER
Before dawn, NATO troops stormed a Taliban hideout in the north of the country to release New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell of Britain and his Afghan colleague Mohammad Sultan Munadi who were kidnapped by insurgents at the end of last week.
Farrell was freed but Munadi was killed in the rescue, along with a British soldier and at least one civilian.
The two had been headed to cover the aftermath of a NATO air strike called in by German troops that killed scores of people. The strike took place in an area controlled by the Taliban and fueled anger among its mainly Pashtun local people.
NATO has confirmed that some civilians may have been killed and ordered a formal investigation into the air strike -- the deadliest incident involving German troops since World War Two.
The German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung quoted a senior NATO officer as saying that, according to preliminary NATO findings, the German officer who called in the air strike did not have the right to give the order.
(Additional reporting by Hamid Shalizi and Sayed Salahuddin in KABUL, Mohammad Hamed in KUNDUZ, and Avril Ormsby and Adrian Croft in LONDON; Writing by Maria Golovnina)
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan Election Commission Defends Release of Tainted Votes
By Steve Herman VOA News New Delhi 09 September 2009
Afghanistan's government-appointed election commission is denying bowing to political pressure to include a large number of tainted ballots in its preliminary polling results. The disputed votes have helped push President Hamid Karzai's total to more than the majority he will need to avoid a runoff election.
With just days to go before all preliminary vote totals are to be released, Afghan President Hamid Karzai's office is applauding the Independent Election Commission "for its efforts in pursuing the process in an impartial and faithful national spirit."
But Mr. Karzai's closest challenger, who is trailing with 28 percent of total votes counted so far is contending the election commission is not very independent nor is its process impartial.
Former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah says his campaign will not accept the results, which he says have been tallied in violation of election laws.
With nearly 92 percent of the results from polling sites, President Karzai has 54 percent of the vote.
IEC spokesman Noor Mohammad Noor, speaking to VOA News, denies allegations commissioners have bowed to political pressure and are including hundreds of thousands of tainted votes for the incumbent.
"No, that is not true. Our colleagues are not under pressure," he said. "And, according to my knowledge, they are going just normal with our procedures, our Constitution and also with election law."
The Election Complaints Commission, a U.N.-funded watchdog, is ordering all ballots from suspect polling stations recounted and audited.
The U.S. Embassy in Kabul, in a statement, is calling for patience as the "process" continues. The statement also calls on both commissions to "rigorously carry out their legal mandates to count all votes and to exclude all fraudulent votes."
The chairman of the Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan, Ahmad Nader Nadery, tells VOA that resolving the issue of the disputed ballots could delay certifying the election by weeks, but should not take months as some are suggesting.
"Taking the widespread reports of fraud and violations during the election it is very necessary and is a must that everybody shall agree on giving more time and resources to the ECC to look at all these complaints, concerns and allegations seriously and thoroughly and then come with the final result," he said.
A credible election is deemed crucial to the reputation of the mission by 42 nations and their 100,000 troops fighting the Taliban insurgency and attempting to preserve Afghanistan's fledgling democracy.
The U.S. military says four of its service members have died in what it calls a "complex attack" in the eastern part of Afghanistan. It is not releasing any further details.
Nearly 1,400 foreign military personnel have died in the country since the invasion eight years ago that ousted the Taliban from power.
Meanwhile, British commandos have freed a kidnapped New York Times reporter in Kunduz province. The correspondent's interpreter and one of the commandos died in the rescue operation. The reporter, Stephen Farrell, told his newspaper he escaped during a fierce firefight between the commandos and his Taliban captors.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is calling the rescue operation an act of "breathtaking heroism."
Farrell was abducted while interviewing witnesses at the site of last week's NATO air strike on two hijacked fuel trucks. Afghan rights officials say dozens of civilians were killed in the strike that had targeted Taliban insurgents.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Karzai leads Afghan vote, but election watchdog finds fraud
The Independent Election Commission said preliminary results gave Karzai 54.1 percent of the vote. But a UN-backed vote monitor ordered a partial recount, citing evidence of fraud.
By Aunohita Mojumdar | Christian Science Monitor Correspondent 09.08.09
KABUL, AFGHANISTAN – Preliminary election results announced today put incumbent president Hamid Karzai firmly in the winning stable even while the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) questioned the legitimacy of the tally, setting the stage for what appears to be a messy political battle.
At stake will be not only the credibility of the electoral process and the legitimacy of the next Afghan government, but the relationship between it and the international community.
The ECC, a UN-backed electoral watchdog, said Tuesday it had found “clear and convincing evidence of fraud in a number of polling stations.” It ordered the Independent Election Commission (IEC) to conduct an audit and recount of ballot boxes in polling stations where there appeared to have been a 100 percent turnout, or where 95 percent of votes were cast in favor of one candidate.
The IEC, however, released figures giving Karzai 54.1 percent of the vote based on results from 91 percent of polling stations, saying that it could not complete the audits ordered by the ECC until all the preliminary results had been counted. It also challenged the ECC order on the grounds of an apparent error in translation.
Today’s events were the first sign of dissension within the electoral process. It is not clear whether the IEC will eventually follow the ECC’s order. Chief Electoral Officer Daoud Najafi said such an exercise would “take a long time.”
“The IEC is violating its own rules where conditions are set for which kind of ballots had to be audited,” says Thomas Ruttig, an independent analyst and founder of the Afghan Analysts Network.
Candace Rondeaux, of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, says that “the response from the IEC was very disappointing. They have abdicated their responsibility and left the ball in the court of the ECC.”
Ms. Rondeaux, like other observers, was surprised at the robust stand of the ECC, which she said had taken “a more aggressive stand than was perhaps expected.”
Both the UN’s top official in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, and the European Union Observer Mission (EUOM) issued statements referring to “irregularities” in the electoral process. The EUOM, in a hard-hitting statement, alleged that its findings had confirmed large-scale ballot stuffing, and that despite legal provisions on fraud detection and mitigation measures hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes were included in the preliminary results.
(Is Afghanistan worth fighting for? Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski is skeptical about a troop surge, while Francis Fukuyama, author of “The End of History and the Last Man,” sees reasons to persist.)
The international community was earlier criticized strongly for its rushed endorsement of the polling process and both Mr. Ruttig and Rondeaux today welcomed the change.
“I welcome that the international community is now standing up to reality. It is late but not too late,” says Ruttig, adding that the ECC now needed backing. Rondeaux also termed it “a more honest assessment” on the part of the international community.
In a short statement the US Embassy in Kabul said: “In this difficult process, we look to the Independent Electoral Commission and the Electoral Complaints Commission to rigorously carry out their legal mandates to count all votes and to exclude all fraudulent votes. We call upon all candidates and their supporters to show patience as the process continues. The United States will await the results at the end of the process when ratified by the ECC, as well as the IEC, as set out in Afghanistan’s electoral law.”
The final results could still be weeks away, given the complexities of an audit and recount and the limited mandate and resources of the ECC to carry out its task. That could mean that a runoff election, if required, could go well into winter, causing consternation in a country where large parts of the mountainous terrain are inaccessible during the harsh winter months, making it impossible to conduct country-wide elections.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan Election Dispute Rises to Top of Clinton’s Agenda
By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan
Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Afghanistan has “moved to the top” of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s agenda since evidence of widespread fraud emerged from last month’s presidential election, the State Department said today.
Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the attention was spurred by the Afghan Electoral Complaints Commission’s finding of “clear and convincing evidence that there was this kind of fraud on a large scale.”
Clinton has been discussing concerns over voting irregularities with U.S. officials in Washington and Kabul, Kelly told reporters. The U.S. wants Afghan authorities to “take these charges very seriously and deal with them in a way that people can have confidence” in the results, he said.
U.S. officials had counted on the Aug. 20 election to yield a credible government that would be a partner in expanding military and economic-development efforts to defeat Taliban insurgents.
The United Nations-backed complaints commission yesterday ordered a partial recount for polling stations that reported 100 percent turnout or where at least 95 percent of votes were cast for a single candidate.
Kelly said the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, met yesterday with President Hamid Karzai for a second time this week to discuss “the need for these elections to be seen as credible and legitimate in the eyes of the Afghan people and in the eyes of the world.”
“We’re very satisfied with the way the Afghan authorities have responded to this,” Kelly said, adding that Karzai himself is “refraining from publicly commenting on the outcome of the election, giving a chance for the process to work out. Afghan governmental organs are also responding to allegations of complaints.”
Rival’s Accusations
Karzai’s rival, Abdullah Abdullah, has released photos and videos that he says show Karzai’s backers stuffing ballot boxes in southern Afghanistan, where violence by Taliban guerrillas kept turnout low.
Kelly said yesterday that “a legitimate electoral process is vital to us and vital to any kind of partnership that we would have with the government going forward.”
Clinton will meet later today with three U.S. senators who recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq to discuss their observations and concerns. Democrats Carl Levin of Michigan, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Ted Kaufman of Delaware are members of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees.
To contact the reporter on this story: Indira Lakshmanan in Washington at ilakshmanan@bloomberg.net
Back to Top
Back to Top
Obama's Afghan Election Failure
The Washington Post By Jim Hoagland 09/10/2009
The aftermath of Afghanistan's elections has been uglier and more consequential than the campaign that preceded the voting. It has become clear that President Hamid Karzai's bid for reelection was tainted by widespread fraud, a development that represents the Obama administration's first significant failure in foreign affairs.
The administration had emphasized that its primary goal was a credible election process, not the victory of any particular candidate or group. President Obama and his aides had sharply urged Karzai publicly and privately to make this vote as close to fair and free as possible in a country at war. Karzai not only disregarded the pressure; he used it to campaign as a nationalist fighting outside influences.
The Afghan leader does not fall short in the chutzpah department or in cunning. He presented Washington with a fait accompli by stitching together a coalition of warlords and other corrupt local officials to deliver the results he wanted. Post-election U.S. efforts to get Karzai to bring his opponents into high positions in the government -- which would require them to stop voicing accusations of fraud -- do not change the underlying meaning of what happened on Aug. 20 and since.
The disputed elections are not simply a political embarrassment. They pose significant questions about the new U.S. counterinsurgency strategy of population protection, which was initially keyed to clearing areas contested by the Taliban -- largely the Pashtun-inhabited southern region -- to enable people there to vote freely.
But even in many of the "cleared" villages, Afghans refused to come out to vote, apparently fearing that in a matter of weeks or months the Taliban would seep back into their zones and seek vengeance on those who went to the polls.
Even more tellingly, Pashtun elders went to Kabul, sought out Western journalists and gave them detailed on-the-record accounts of how Karzai supporters falsified the returns from the elders' territory. This may attest to their new attachment to democracy and press freedom -- or, as I would guess, to their fear of how the Taliban would react to fabricated precinct results showing large pro-Karzai turnouts in their villages.
These are calculations that people engaged in civil wars live and die by. Those who reside in the territory that American, British, Afghan and other soldiers fought to clear will wait to see if their communities do remain beyond Taliban reach for long. Only then will they decide to take the kind of risks the administration expected of them this time.
The White House initially described the elections as an unalloyed success story. But after the United Nations-backed Electoral Complaints Commission said Tuesday it had found "clear and convincing evidence of fraud," particularly in the southern provinces, U.S. officials privately resumed criticizing Karzai. Still, they avoided any suggestion that the relatively heavy U.S. and British casualties this August had been in vain.
The continuing role of tribal politics in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan will also be studiously and deliberately neglected by the administration in public. That is unfortunate. The tensions between Afghanistan's ethnic groups hold the key to the administration's political and military strategies -- but an increasingly restive American public is not being told this.
Karzai's relatively poor showing among his fellow Pashtuns, who make up 42 percent of Afghanistan's population and nearly all of the Taliban's forces, is a danger sign for Obama's strategy of rapidly building up the Afghan National Army by adding U.S. trainers and other forces while moving to co-opt local Taliban commanders.
The Bush administration originally rejected such a strategy after concluding that Afghan forces lacked the "absorptive capacity" to field enough officers and sergeants to direct large Afghan formations. This was another way of saying that an army expansion that would have sent large numbers of Tajik and Uzbek tribesmen from the north into Pashtun areas to fight the Taliban would have created disasters.
The important debate is not the media guessing game about how many troops U.S. commanders may request beyond the 21,000 that Obama already approved. The more serious question is whether the escalation strategy can produce results on the ground fast enough to stem growing disaffection at home.
Karzai's failure to heed Washington's demands for a credible election process makes this harder. Obama is stuck with a damaged plan to which there is little immediate alternative. He needs to be more forthright with the American people about the sacrifices and obstacles ahead. It is the people who are ultimately responsible, and they need the facts to exercise that responsibility.
Back to Top
Back to Top
No 10 defends Afghanistan rescue
Thursday, 10 September 2009 14:42 UK BBC News
Downing Street has defended the decision to rescue a British journalist kidnapped in Afghanistan, saying it was "the best chance of saving life".
The final decision to rescue Stephen Farrell was taken by Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, a spokesman said.
An earlier, unsuccessful, raid took place within earshot of the captives.
The mission in northern Afghanistan left a British paratrooper, an Afghan journalist and two civilians dead.
The earlier raid was in the wrong location but close enough to alert Mr Farrell's kidnappers, the BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner has learned.
He told the BBC's One O'Clock News: "There was in fact an earlier raid on Tuesday night put in by British forces to a location where they thought he was being held. They were just out, they were slightly wrong, but it was close enough for the Taliban who were holding Stephen Farrell to hear this.
"They captured some Taliban on the Tuesday night. A decision was then subsequently taken to go in."
The decision to move in followed consultation with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and advice from the government's emergency committee, Cobra.
Afghan journalists have blamed Nato troops for the death of their colleague, Sultan Munadi, a journalist who was working as a translator for Mr Farrell.
The Afghan journalists have also suggested that the raid was unnecessary because negotiations to free the captives were progressing.
'Enormous repercussions'
Our correspondent said that had been denied by sources in the UK government: "That's not the picture they recognise at all.
"They say that negotiations were going nowhere and that once they had the location of where he was, given that he was being moved around a lot they needed to move swiftly in this early period.
"The big worry I think for them was that if they didn't go in and he was then moved off and a month later pops up in a Taliban or al Qaeda video in an orange jumpsuit the repercussions would have been enormous."
Writing in the New York Times, Mr Farrell said he thought there had been an earlier attempt to rescue them.
He said: ""On the third night, just before the 3 am meal - Muslims breakfast very early to comply with the Ramadan daytime fast - there was a scare. Aerial activity intensified, and there were loud explosions in nearby fields.
"We and the Taliban, took this as an attempt to free us. They fled with us in minutes, racing across open fields in the dark until they found another refuge."
'Appeared safe'
Mr Farrell and Mr Munadi were kidnapped travelling to Kunduz in the north of the country.
They were heading to the scene of a Nato air strike on two hijacked fuel tankers in which a number of bystanders were killed.
Military insiders have questioned whether going to an area where anger against the West had been caused by the civilian deaths in the Nato strike was wise.
But Mr Farrell, 46, said his Afghan drivers advised him the road "appeared safe".
Civilian deaths
Two Afghan civilians also died in the Nato raid, a local governor told the BBC.
A resident of Char Dara district in Kunduz province, Mohammad Nabi, reportedly said his brother's wife was killed when his home was raided.
The Taliban had turned up there on Tuesday night with their two captives, demanding shelter, Mr Nabi told Reuters.
Mr Farrell has thanked the soldiers who saved him, saying "It wasn't, and never will be, enough".
He also paid tribute to his colleague Mr Munadi, who died "trying to help me".
He said: "I did not know whether the bullets came from in front, to his right or to his left," he said.
"It was over. Sultan was dead. He had died trying to help me, right up to the very last seconds of his life."
This is the second time Mr Farrell has been abducted while on assignment - in 2004 he was kidnapped in the Iraqi city of Falluja while working for London's Times newspaper.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Criticism over journalist rescue in Afghanistan
by Lynne O'donnell – Thu Sep 10, 5:52 am ET
KABUL (AFP) – Criticism mounted Thursday over the dramatic airborne rescue from Taliban territory of a kidnapped Western journalist who walked free as four others, including a British soldier, were killed.
Negotiators were deep in talks with the Taliban to free New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell and negotiations appeared to be progressing well before British commandos intervened with the rescue operation, a source told AFP.
Farrell, who has dual British-Irish nationality, walked free, but his Afghan colleague and father of two Sultan Munadi, a British soldier, an Afghan woman and an Afghan child in the house were killed.
In Afghanistan, local journalists expressed anger over the death of Munadi, whose bullet-riddled body they said was abandoned at the scene for his parents to collect and take home for burial.
In Britain, the press questioned whether military force should have been used, saying hostage negotiators expressed anger at the raid because they were within days of securing the peaceful release of the journalists.
Farrell and Munadi were the second team from The New York Times to be kidnapped in Afghanistan in less than a year. Their abduction highlighted growing insecurity in the once relatively peaceful north of the country.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown hailed the "breathtaking heroism" of the commandos, but one person involved in the Taliban talks said negotiations were under way and that no one believed the journalists were in imminent danger.
Public support for British involvement in the eight-year Afghan war is plummeting over record soldier fatalities and a controversial presidential election mired in allegations of fraud and vote-rigging.
"There were a lot of people trying to make contact and keep the discussions going," said the source, adding: "We had contact with different parties, and were urging them to release the two journalists unconditionally."
The Times newspaper, quoting defence sources, said the raid was mounted after British forces feared Farrell could be moved, and there were no guarantees that the negotiations would have led to his and Munadi's release.
However, several other sources quoted by the newspaper said the kidnappers were, at worst, seeking a ransom.
An unnamed Western official told the paper: "It was totally heavy-handed. If they'd showed a bit of patience and respect they could have got both of them out without firing a bullet."
A friend of Munadi's family said the soldiers traced the house where the two journalists were held by tracking signals from Munadi's mobile phone when he called his parents to say he was safe.
Munadi's parents had to collect his body themselves, with "no one to help them and take it back for burial," the family friend said.
"He was just left there, and the body was in a terrible state -- shot in the front and in the back, so it is impossible to know if he was killed by the soldiers or by the Taliban."
Naqibullah Taib, of the Afghan Independent Journalists' Association, told AFP that Afghan journalists generally lack the experience to make split-second, life-saving judgments.
He called on international news organisations to "offer more training to Afghan journalists to ensure they are as well prepared as possible for situations that might come up."
Munadi was a senior reporter and manager with Afghan state radio before going to Germany to study. He had returned to Kabul on a summer break from his studies to spend time with his wife and children.
He was buried in Kabul on Wednesday not far from his family home.
Journalist colleagues visited his grave on Thursday to lay flowers, and on Friday a memorial prayer service will be held in a Kabul mosque.
The nature of Farrell's release mirrored anger that many Afghans expressed over the release of a kidnapped Italian journalist in 2007. His interpreter was beheaded and his driver killed.
Farrell, writing about his four days in captivity and the rescue operation in The New York Times blog, said he was "comfortable" with his decision to go to the riverbank where a NATO air strike killed scores of people last week.
He said Munadi was shot dead right in front of him before the soldiers dragged him away to a helicopter.
"It was over. Sultan was dead. He had died trying to help me, right up to the very last seconds of his life," he wrote.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Commandos free kidnapped journalist in Afghanistan
by Lynne O'donnell – Wed Sep 9, 10:32 am ET
KABUL (AFP) – NATO commandos on Wednesday rescued a New York Times reporter held by the Taliban in Afghanistan in an airborne raid that left his Afghan colleague, two civilians and a British soldier dead, officials said.
Gunmen snatched Stephen Farrell, who has dual British-Irish nationality, and Sultan Munadi four days earlier while they were reporting on a controversial NATO air strike that targeted fuel tankers and killed scores of people.
Farrell and Munadi were the second team from The New York Times to be kidnapped in Afghanistan in less than a year. Their abduction highlighted growing insecurity in the once relatively peaceful north of the country.
London's Ministry of Defence said a British soldier was killed in Wednesday's operation but refused to confirm media reports that British special forces were involved, while lamenting the death of his Afghan translator.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown paid tribute to the "breathtaking heroism" of those who carried out the raid and thanked the Afghan authorities and NATO allies for their support.
The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which deploys 64,500 troops from more than 40 nations against the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan, confirmed the operation in the northern province of Kunduz.
"Early this morning, joint forces from ISAF and Afghanistan entered a series of compounds in Kunduz and rescued the New York Times journalist Stephen Farrell," an ISAF spokesman told AFP.
Farrell, who is married, was unhurt. But his interpreter, a 34-year-old father of two who was working in Afghanistan on a break from university studies in Germany, was killed in a hail of gunfire, the newspaper reported.
In a telephone call Farrell, 46, told The New York Times: "I'm out! I'm free!" the newspaper reported.
Prior to the release, the kidnapping was kept quiet by the newspaper and most major news organisations out of concern for the men's safety.
"In this operation, a woman and a child were killed," said Abdul Wahid, governor of Kunduz's Chardara district.
"The journalists were kept in the same house where the woman and boy were killed," he told AFP, although he was unable to say who killed the civilians.
Farrell told The New York Times that he and his captors heard helicopters approach before the dramatic rescue.
"We were all in a room, the Talibs all ran, it was obviously a raid," Farrell said. "We thought they would kill us. We thought, should we go out?"
Farrell said that as he and Munadi ran outside, he heard voices. "There were bullets all around us. I could hear British and Afghan voices."
The Afghan governor in Kunduz, Mohammad Omar, initially said that Munadi was killed by the Taliban during the raid, but Farrell told the paper he did not know who fired the fatal bullets.
Munadi advanced shouting "Journalist! Journalist!" but dropped dead in a hail of bullets just in front of his colleague.
President Hamid Karzai condemned his killing "by the enemies of Afghanistan" -- a standard formulation referring to the Taliban. The UN envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, said he was "greatly saddened" by news of Munadi's death.
Writing last week in the newspaper's At War blog, for which Farrell was chief blogger, Munadi wrote of his love for Afghanistan and why he would never leave the war-torn country permanently.
"Now I am hopeful of a better situation. And if I leave this country, if other people like me leave this country, who will come to Afghanistan? Will it be the Taliban who come to govern this country?"
Eleven weeks ago, New York Times journalist David Rohde and a local reporter escaped following seven months in captivity after being abducted outside Kabul with their driver, according to the newspaper.
"We're overjoyed that Steve is free, but deeply saddened that his freedom came at such a cost," said Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times.
"We are doing all we can to learn the details of what happened. Our hearts go out to Sultan's family," he added.
Farrell is an experienced and well-respected reporter who has worked for the New York Times since July 2007, largely in Iraq, and was formerly Middle East correspondent for Britain's The Times newspaper.
He was also kidnapped and held captive for around eight hours at gunpoint near Baghdad in April 2004.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Govt approved Afghanistan rescue
Thu Sep 10, 7:12 am ET
LONDON (AFP) – British ministers approved the rescue of a kidnapped Western journalist from Taliban territory which resulted in four people being killed, Downing Street confirmed Thursday.
A spokeswoman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office confirmed media reports that Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth took the final decision to approve the use of force to free reporter Stephen Farrell.
Farrell, who has dual British-Irish nationality, walked free but his Afghan colleague Sultan Munadi, as well a British soldier, an Afghan woman and an Afghan child were killed in the operation.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Warning of Further Kidnappings Issued in Afghanistan
By Steve Herman VOA 10 September 2009
Security experts are warning more abductions of reporters and other foreign personnel are likely in the war-torn country, following the kidnapping and controversial rescue of a British journalist in Afghanistan.
The alert was issued after the kidnapping and rescue of a New York Times reporter in Kunduz province. Another correspondent for the same newspaper was kidnapped outside Kabul last December and escaped his captors seven months later, after being taken to Pakistan.
News about the two kidnappings was initially withheld from the public while authorities worked to secure the release of the reporters.
Risk consultant John Drake, of the British security company AKE, predicts several more such incidents will take place this year in Afghanistan.
"The security situation has not improved in the country over recent weeks," he said. "And it looks like it is only going to get worse with no strong imposition of security or authority even after the election."
Security consultants say a foreigner gets kidnapped, on average, once every other month in the country, with ransom payments for their release reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In its just-issued warning, AKE says members of the press remain most at risk, but all foreign personnel, including investors and business travel, also are potential targets.
AKE's Drake, speaking to VOA from Aberdeen, Scotland, says the Taliban and other groups have dual political and financial objectives by kidnapping correspondents and other foreigners.
"A lot of groups want to send a strong message to foreign governments by targeting foreign nationals who are operating in the country - the strategy being to convince the general public of coalition nations that their armies and armed forces should not be in Afghanistan," he said. "But a lot of groups that are responsible for the abductions are also very keen in obtaining ransom. It's a very lucrative source of money. It is a major business in Afghanistan."
New York Times correspondent Stephen Farrell was freed unharmed by British commandos Wednesday. Farrell's Afghan colleague, Sultan Munadi, was killed during the operation, along with one of the commandos, and an Afghan woman and a child who were caught in the cross fire.
Farrell, who has dual British-Irish citizenship, had been kidnapped once previously while on assignment in Iraq.
The rescue operation to free him, approved at the highest levels of the British government, is being criticized in both Kabul and London amid reports that the captives were close to being freed through negotiations.
The Media Club of Afghanistan is blaming NATO forces for the death of their respected colleague, although it remains unclear whether Munadi was shot by the commandos or the Taliban.
Journalist Farhad Paykar, speaking on behalf of the organization, says international forces were reckless and demonstrated an inhumane double standard.
"There is no justification for the international forces to rescue their own national, and retrieve the dead body of their own soldier killed in action, and leave behind the dead body of Sultan Munadi in the area," said Paykar.
According to the U.S.-based Committee to Project Journalists, at least 17 foreign and Afghan journalists on duty in Afghanistan have been killed since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban from power.
More than 1,400 foreign troops have died while thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed by insurgents or as a result of military operations.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan journalists boycott Taliban activities over murdering colleague
KABUL, Sept. 10 (Xinhua) -- Media Club of Afghanistan (MCA), an association of journalists, on Thursday condemned the kidnapping of their colleague Sultan Mohammad Munadi by Taliban militants which resulted in his death and announced boycotting the outfit's activities for three days.
"In a bid to express our opposition to the abduction of journalists, especially the recent case that resulted in martyrdom of Mr Munadi, the MCA calls on all Afghan and international media outlets to boycott any news provided by Taliban for three days," are solution read out on late Munadi' s grave said.
The association in the resolution also called on the Taliban militants to officially apologize for the abduction of Mr. Munadi. Munadi and his foreign colleague Stephen Farrell both of whom worked for New York Times and went to Kunduz province north of Afghanistan early weekend to cover the aftermath of air strikes on two oil tankers hijacked by Taliban but kidnapped by the outfit.
In the air raids more than 100 people including Taliban insurgents were killed and injured.
NATO-led troops in effort to rescue the journalists launched commando operation early Wednesday rescued Farrel safe and sound but Munadi was killed along with another woman and child in the village where the hostages were kept.
Several journalists have been killed, injured or threatened in the war-torn Afghanistan by militants and warring sides over the past couple of years.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan MCA calls on gov't to punish culprits behind journalist murder
KABUL, Sept. 10 (Xinhua) -- Media Club of Afghanistan (MCA), an association of journalists, on Thursday strongly condemned the killing of New York Times reporter Sultan Ahmad Munadi, calling on government to bringing to justice those behind the gruesome incident.
"Press Club of Afghanistan besides strongly condemning the brutal murder of Munada called on the government particularly and President Hamid Karzai to bring those behind the crime to justice," said a resolution read out at late Munadi' s grave.
Munadi and his foreign colleague Stephen Farrell went to Kunduz province, north of Afghanistan, last weekend to cover the aftermath of air strikes on two oil tankers hijacked by Taliban but kidnapped by the outfit.
NATO-led troops and Afghan security forces, in effort to rescue the journalists launched commando operation early Wednesday, freed Farrel safe but Munadi was killed along with another woman and child in the village where the hostages were kept.
The journalists also lashed at NATO-led troops for failing to rescue their Afghan colleague, insisting there is no justification for the international forces to rescue their own national, and retrieve the dead body of their own soldier killed in action, but leave behind the dead body of Sultan Munadi in the area.
"The MCA holds the international forces responsible for the death of Mr. Munadi because they resorted in military action before exploring other non-violent means," it stressed.
In the resolution, the association also called on Taliban and other insurgents not to use the abduction of journalists as means for political and military purposes.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan Governor Lashes Out at Central Govt.
Written by Farhad Balkhi Quqnoos September 10, 2009
An influential Afghan governor has accused the central government of destabilising security in his province by arming local commanders
Atta Mohammad Noor, governor of the northern Balkh province, addressing a large audience gathered to mark the death anniversary of Ahmad Shah Massoud on Wednesday, said Karzai’s government distributes arms to local commanders in some districts of the province.
The Afghan Interior Ministry has termed the accusations ‘totally baseless’, adding the General Attorney Office and the National Security Council have been asked to probe the allegations.
Governor Noor, a strong ally of President Karzai’s main challenger Abdullah Abdullah, lashed out at the Afghan ministries of defence and interior for preventing post-election protests in the province.
The ex-Foreign Minister, Abdullah previously warned to not accept the outcome of last month’ election if the country’s Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) fails to meet the fraud allegations.
The Afghan Independent Election Commission announced on Tuesday that Karzai has collected 2,959,093 votes and Abdullah earned 1,546,490 votes out of the 91.6 per cent of polling stations tallied over the past three weeks.
Balkh province is one of the strongholds of Abdullah, where he has bagged 46 per cent of the votes and Karzai has collected 38 from nearly 97 per cent of the polling stations that have been tallied so far.
Balkh governor added no signs of improvement have appeared in the life of the people, despite the infusion of massive foreign donations have made to Afghanistan over the past seven years.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Taliban presence seen across almost all Afghanistan
By Paul Tait
SINGAPORE (Reuters) – The Taliban have a significant presence in almost every corner of Afghanistan, data from a policy think tank showed on Thursday, as the country lurches into political uncertainty after a disputed presidential election.
A political standoff has deepened since the August 20 poll, with President Hamid Karzai defending the ballot as honest but a U.N.-backed election watchdog invalidating some votes and ordering a partial recount amid widespread accusations of fraud.
The uncertainty coincides with the most violent period since the Taliban were toppled by U.S.-backed Afghan forces in 2001, with record military and civilian deaths testing the resolve of U.S. and European leaders.
The election, initially hailed a success after the Taliban failed to disrupt it, has since become a major headache for Washington and a test of President Barack Obama's new regional strategy to defeat the militants and stabilize Afghanistan.
A security map by policy research group the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) however showed a deepening security crisis with substantial Taliban activity in at least 97 percent of the country.
The ICOS data, obtained by Reuters before its release on Thursday, painted an even darker picture than an Afghan government map last month that showed almost half of Afghanistan at either a high risk of attack or under "enemy control."
Based on reports of an average of one or more insurgent attacks a week since January 2009, it showed heavy Taliban activity across 80 percent of Afghanistan. A substantial Taliban presence -- one or more attacks per month -- was seen in another 17 percent of the country.
"DRAMATIC INCREASE"
A similar map released by ICOS researchers in Afghanistan late last year noted a permanent Taliban presence in 72 percent of the country and a substantial presence in another 21 percent.
In the most significant difference to previous security assessments, the latest ICOS map shows a heavy increase in areas of the north previously regarded as relatively safe such as Balkh and Kunduz provinces.
The Afghan government map, drawn up with the help of the United Nations and dated four months before the election, showed large areas of the north as either low- or medium-risk areas.
"Across the north of Afghanistan, there has been a dramatic increase in the rate of insurgent attacks against international, Afghan government, and civilian targets," said ICOS policy analyst Alexander Jackson.
A NATO air strike in a Taliban-controlled area of Kunduz killed scores of people this month, angering many Afghans and adding to tensions between Kabul and Western countries with troops in Afghanistan.
The Taliban-led insurgency has grown this year out of traditional strongholds in the south and east and has even hit the capital, Kabul. Violence escalated further before the poll.
U.S. officials are debating whether to send even more troops to Afghanistan but uncertainty over the election results and accusations that Karzai's camp has been involved in widespread fraud have made relations even icier.
Preliminary results from about 92 percent of polling stations show Karzai has passed the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a second-round run-off against his main rival, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah.
Abdullah has warned a fraudulent outcome "was a recipe for instability." A second round was due to be held on October 1 if needed, but that would now be almost impossible to stage before the onset of winter.
ICOS President Norine MacDonald said this meant a constitutional vacuum and "government paralysis" lasting months were possible.
(Editing by Alex Richardson)
Back to Top
Back to Top
A primer on Afghanistan's political situation, and the U.S. role
Los Angeles Times By Michael Muskal September 9, 2009
As charges of election fraud surround Afghanistan's recent presidential vote, Obama is considering his next steps in that country. Here's some background, and what Obama faces.
President Obama is weighing the next step to take in Afghanistan, a policy problem made more daunting by charges of fraud in the recent presidential election. Here is primer to understanding the confusing political situation in Afghanistan and the U.S. role.
Why is the United States fighting in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan is a landlocked country between Iran and Pakistan with a history of violence, particularly to invaders such as the British and the Russians. After the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the United States and its allies attacked Al Qaeda bases in the country, then controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist group. The West, operating with United Nations authority, overthrew the Taliban. Al Qaeda, with its top officials including Osama bin Laden, fled to the wilds of Pakistan from where they continue to operate.
What is the current situation in Afghanistan?
The country is nominally led by President Hamid Karzai, but the resurgent Taliban controls important areas. Karzai, who was seeking his second presidential term, was opposed in the recent election by Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister. The key issues included what will be the country's relationship to the United States and NATO, which have more than 100,000 troops in the country working with local forces to fight the growing violence. Complicating the situation is the high level of corruption fueled by cash from the illicit opium trade.
What were the election results?
The Afghanistan election commission says that Karzai is ahead with some 54% of the vote, a majority that would avoid a runoff election against Abdullah. However, the U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission has said there was convincing evidence of fraud and has ordered a recount in some areas.
So what is next for the elections?
It is not clear how extensive any recount would be, but officials say the process could take months. Or, if it appears that enough votes are discarded and Karzai falls short of 50% needed for outright victory, a runoff could be held. Oct. 1 is the tentative date for any such runoff. In any case, the final determination about who is in charge will likely take months at least.
Karzai claimed victory hours after the polls closed on Aug. 20, hoping to cement his hold. But the real test after the elections is whether he is seen as the legitimate victor. That applies inside the country, where even the non-Taliban opposition is becoming restive as well as outside the country, where Karzai has had tense relations with the Obama administration.
Why does it matter to the U.S. who wins?
For the United States, Afghanistan has always been the key to the war on terrorism. For the Bush administration, Afghanistan was the protector of Al Qaeda and had to toppled, eventually to be replaced by Karzai, who was friendly to U.S. interests. Now Afghanistan is seen as a listening post into the Al Qaeda areas of Pakistan and a country that must be protected from the return of the Taliban.
What is the Obama administration position?
There is support for helping Afghanistan, but there are differences over whether to send more troops into an increasingly unpopular war. The Obama administration has increased the troop authorization to 68,000, but there are fears that it will not be enough. There has been no formal request for more troops, but U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal has prepared a report on Afghanistan options which is being weighed by Obama.
Politically, the Obama administration is at a crossroads as well. Obama and many Democrats opposed the Bush administration war in Iraq, arguing that Afghanistan was the important theater for the war on terrorism. But as the death toll has grown from violence in Afghanistan, public support has decreased. Obama's standing in the polls has fallen and he needs political capital for his domestic program, now being weighed in Congress.
What about NATO?
NATO has authorized approximately 40,000 troops in Afghanistan, though not all are combat forces. The war has also grown increasingly unpopular in Britain, France and Germany. Leaders there have called for a major international conference this year to discuss the elections and the future of Afghanistan policy.
Back to Top
Back to Top
European Leaders Call for Conference to Assess Progress in Afghanistan
By Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 10, 2009
The leaders of France, Britain and Germany have called for a high-level international conference on Afghanistan, saying it is time to "take stock of progress . . . and to evaluate the challenges that lie ahead."
In a letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the leaders said the conference, which they suggested take place outside Afghanistan under U.N. and Afghan sponsorship, would facilitate agreement on "new benchmarks and timelines" for gradually turning responsibility for the country over to Afghans.
The letter, dated Tuesday and released Wednesday by the office of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, coincides with growing European concern about the direction and objectives of the international enterprise in Afghanistan. It clearly suggested that decisions should not be left solely to the United States, which fields about two-thirds of the nearly 100,000 foreign troops there.
Antiwar sentiment is strongest in Britain, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week delivered a major speech designed "to take head-on the arguments that suggest our strategy in Afghanistan is wrong and to answer those who question whether we should be in Afghanistan at all." In addition to Brown and Sarkozy, the letter was signed by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, where opposition has been fueled by an airstrike in northern Afghanistan last week that was initiated by German troops and that killed an unknown number of civilians.
In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday at a military ceremony in Norfolk, Va., NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen expressed concern "that the public discourse on the effort in Afghanistan has started to go in the wrong direction," the Associated Press reported from Brussels.
No date was set for the proposed meeting of foreign ministers, although the leaders' letter said it should take place "before the end of this year right after the inauguration of the new Afghan government."
The inauguration has been indefinitely postponed while the results of the Aug. 20 presidential election remain in dispute. Although Afghan electoral officials said Tuesday that President Hamid Karzai has amassed more than 54 percent of the vote, with nearly all ballots counted -- enough to avoid a runoff with his nearest challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah -- an international commission is investigating complaints of ballot-box stuffing and other extensive fraud, and a final tally could take months. Most of the fraud complaints have been directed at Karzai's campaign.
A delayed result poses a dilemma for the Obama administration and NATO governments with troops in Afghanistan. None of them is satisfied with Karzai's performance as chief executive over the past five years, and all are concerned about election irregularities, but none wants to offend him in anticipation of his likely reelection.
In an interview published Wednesday by the French newspaper Le Figaro, Karzai said that the British and U.S. news media, which have reported widely on the fraud allegations, have tried to "delegitimize the future Afghan government," and he suggested that their governments were manipulating them in order to install a "puppet" government.
"In Afghanistan, the puppets have never brought luck to their foreign masters," he said, mentioning past military occupations by Britain and what was then the Soviet Union. "I hope the Americans will not try the same thing because they would face the same fate."
Karzai noted that he had won Afghanistan's last presidential election, in 2004, with 54.5 percent of the vote and that he expected to do better this time. But he said he would respect the official outcome.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Wednesday that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton "would look forward to participating" in the proposed international conference. Although Clinton has remained largely silent on the Afghanistan issue, Kelly said that "it's moved to the top of her agenda, really, in the last few days."
He said that Clinton had spoken "several times" with Karl W. Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador in Kabul, and met Wednesday with the administration's special representative to the region, Richard C. Holbrooke. Kelly said Clinton would also meet with Democratic Sens. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Ted Kaufman (Del.), who returned this week from Afghanistan.
Clinton has also attended meetings at the White House, he said. President Obama's national security team has begun discussions on a new assessment of the situation in Afghanistan by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in the country.
Correspondents Edward Cody in Paris and Pamela Constable in Kabul contributed to this report.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan: Now the political fighting breaks out
By Andrew Grice, The Independent (UK)Political Editor Thursday, 10 September 2009
The Prime Minister's strategy on Afghanistan is under mounting pressure from all three of the main parties as the political consensus on the war begins to crack.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are preparing to call for the Afghan election to be re-run amid growing evidence of vote-rigging and intimidation. Their move puts Gordon Brown in a difficult position, because Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, is utterly opposed to holding another election.
And Mr Brown is trying to prevent Labour activists staging a debate at this month's conference demanding that British troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan. Tensions over the war could dent Mr Brown's plans for a show of Labour unity at the last annual gathering before the general election.
If Mr Cameron becomes prime minister, he would send more troops to Afghanistan so that the training of the Afghan army and police could be quickened – and British forces withdrawn more quickly. His approach is described as "send them in, train them up and get out" in Tory circles. Senior Tories believe such a strategy is backed by Britain's military chiefs, whose call for up to 2,000 extra troops was blocked by the Government earlier this year. An extra 900 were sent for the Afghan election period only.
Although the Opposition still supports the mission in Afghanistan, Mr Cameron broke ranks with the Government yesterday by condemning the way the country's elections were held.
In a conversation with the shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague picked up by a BBC microphone, Mr Cameron said: "The things that seem to have happened are so naked, you know, you just saw the number of votes and the number of people who actually turned up at polling stations, it just couldn't possibly be right ... We should be very clear about that."
The Tories are expected to call for the election to be re-run after the Independent Electoral Commission has published its findings on the first round of the contest.
The Liberal Democrats called for a second round whatever the official result of round one because there were so many doubts about the process. Nick Clegg, the party leader, said: "It now seems very clear that the elections in Afghanistan have been plagued by fraud and we need a second round to establish some credibility in any government. This is necessary to ensure Afghanistan gets a president with legitimacy without which the conflict against the Taliban will be all the more difficult."
Ministers worry that Mr Brown's autumn fightback is being hampered by controversy over Afghanistan and the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Yesterday the Prime Minister gave ground to his critics by calling on world leaders to discuss an exit strategy in Afghanistan. He called for "new benchmarks and timelines" to be agreed at an international conference later this year, in a joint letter to the United Nations with the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Senior Labour sources confirmed that the party's high command is trying to head off a special debate on Afghanistan at the Brighton conference. But the grassroots Campaign for Labour Party Democracy has circulated a motion to constituency parties urging them to call for a "contemporary issues" debate, stating: "The Government should withdraw British troops from Afghanistan."
In a message to local parties, the campaign says: "Rather than keeping terror from the streets of Britain, the war is fuelling hatred and increasing the possibility of future attacks. Afghanistan must be guaranteed a future without the threat of war and foreign domination. Our Government should bring the British troops home immediately."
Labour officials are pressing the trade unions, who, like party members, hold half the votes at the conference, not to call for a debate on Afghanistan. A party source said: "There is concern at the top [of the party] about this. But there is also growing concern among party members about what is happening in Afghanistan."
The Prime Minister's spokesman admitted people were "anxious" to know the result of the elections but said it was important to let the counting process run its course, with only preliminary results announced so far. Describing reports of fraud as "no surprise", he added: "We always knew there would be potential difficulties with these elections and that fraud was a possibility."
Mr Hague said: "If the commission requires some elections to be re-run, that should happen. Nor should a full second round of the election be ruled out if that proves necessary."
Mr Brown, Mr Sarkozy and Ms Merkel said their proposed UN summit should set "new prospects and goals" for governance, rule of law and human rights in Afghanistan, as well as security and social and economic development." They added: "We should agree on new benchmarks and timelines in order to formulate a joint framework for our transition phase in Afghanistan, ie to set our expectations of ownership and the clear view to hand over responsibility step-by-step to the Afghans, wherever possible."
Fighting talk: Why politicians support war
It is a brave politician who opposes a decision to go to war, no matter how disastrous it proves to be in the long run.
The first war to be covered effectively by the British press was the shambolic campaign in the Crimea in 1853-56. Two MPs, Richard Cobden and John Bright, vociferously opposed the whole adventure and they both lost their seats in 1857. Not even the scandal of the Charge of the Light Brigade saved them.
In 1914 James Ramsay MacDonald led the call for a negotiated peace with Germany. He lost his position as chairman of the Labour Party, was sent white feathers through the post and at the end of the Great War, when he tried to stand for re-election in Leicester, was heavily defeated.
In 1956, the Labour Party, led by Hugh Gaitskell, opposed the decision to reclaim the Suez Canal by force. Suez was a disaster, the Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, had to resign, but the Tories won the next election with a thumping majority.
During the Falklands campaign in 1982, the Labour leadership constantly urged Margaret Thatcher to negotiate. Public opinion preferred a military victory, despite the cost in human lives. The Falklands War was a major contributor to Labour's humiliation in the subsequent election.
The Conservatives supported each of the wars into which Tony Blair sent British troops, including Afghanistan and Iraq. But they changed tack within a year of the invasion of Iraq, after the Liberal Democrats had shown that being anti-war can be a vote winner. In February 2004, the Tory leader Michael Howard called on Mr Blair to resign for allegedly sending the country to war on false information, and in July he implied that he would have voted against the war if he had not been misled by the Prime Minister.
Andy McSmith
Back to Top
Back to Top
Careerists Pull Obama to Afghan Mess
Middle East Online - Sep 10 4:07 AM
Sadly, nothing has changed in Afghanistan, where Afghan civilians are being killed in NATO bombing raids that continue to demonstrate a cavalier attitude toward protecting the innocent from US fighter planes. Once again, op-ed writers are making the case for an expansion of the war in Afghanistan, says Melvin A. Goodman.
President Barack Obama is currently facing the most two important decisions of his young presidency.
On Wednesday, we will learn whether he has the intestinal fortitude to fight for real change in reforming the nation’s health care system.
And later this month, we will learn whether he will commit more young men and women to a losing battle in Afghanistan, which is rapidly becoming President Obama’s briar patch. Meanwhile, nothing has changed at home, where the armchair warriors of the mainstream media are campaigning for more troops and a greater commitment to “winning.”
Sadly, nothing has changed in Afghanistan, where Afghan civilians are being killed in NATO bombing raids that continue to demonstrate a cavalier attitude toward protecting the innocent from US fighter planes. And yesterday we learned that US soldiers stormed through an Afghan hospital, searching for wounded Taliban fighters and tying up hospital staff and visitors.
We were led to believe several months ago that the change in US commanders in Afghanistan was due primarily to making sure our military power was used more responsibly to avoid “collateral damage” in order to “win hearts and minds.”
The late Supreme Court justice Hugo Black believed that “paramount among the responsibilities of a free press was the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shots and shells.”
Seven years ago, however, many elements of the mainstream media helped build a consensus for war against Iraq based on falsified intelligence and devious claims about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to terrorism.
The day after Secretary of State Colin Powell’s calumnious speech to the United Nations making the case for war, the editorial and op-ed writers of the Washington Post seconded the motion and called for immediate military action.
Even the most liberal Post writer, the late Mary McGrory, wrote an op-ed titled “I’m Persuaded,” which failed to analyze the dubious claims put forth by Powell’s speechwriters at the Central Intelligence Agency, led by CIA Director George Tenet and deputy director John McLaughlin.
Once again, the editorial and op-ed writers of the Post are making the case for an expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Armchair warriors such as Richard Cohen and Anne Applebaum in Tuesday’s Post as well as David Ignatius and Michael Gerson in recent weeks have made their pitches for war.
Cohen, who is neither a student of national security nor foreign policy and regularly beat the war drums for Iraq, makes the simplest and most simple-minded argument in an op-ed titled “Eight Years Later and Still No Revenge.”
His column used the word “revenge” six times and provides no other reason for an expanded military conflict that will cost great amounts of blood and treasure with no real chance for success.
Applebaum simplistically believes it is up to Obama to “cajole and convince, to produce plans and evidence, to show he has gathered the best people and the most resources possible — to campaign, in other words, and campaign hard.”
She presents no reasons for any of this and has reduced the difficult decisions of war vs. peace to ordinary politics and politicking.
Gerson, the former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, simply believes that we have “no choice but to try,” and Ignatius opts for the so-called “middle way,” which demands that we “bolster our friends and bloody our enemies enough that, somewhere down the road, we can cut a deal.”
Gerson and Ignatius provide platitudes and bromides without addressing the essential question of whether Afghanistan (impoverished, landlocked Afghanistan) is a vital US national interest that demands more American lives.
They provide no discussion of the impossible logistics situation that we face; no discussion of the impossibility of nation building where there has never been a genuine “nation;” no discussion of the Pakistan sanctuary and Pakistan support for the Taliban.
(Post editorial writers would benefit greatly from reading the excellent reporting of their own staff writer in Southwest Asia, Rajiv Chandrasekaran before offering their chauvinistic opinions.)
But the Wall Street Journal, again like the run-up to the Iraq War, takes first place in making the case for an expanded war in Afghanistan.
Unlike the Post, the Wall Street Journal actually turns to op-ed writers Michael O’Hanlon and Bruce Riedel, who have wide experience in the national security arena. Reidel, in fact, chaired President Obama’s review of Afghan and Pakistani policy.
They base their case on six factors that make little sense and, in some cases, are counter-factual: the “Afghan people want success” (what does that mean?); “Afghans are still largely pro-American” (we are talking about one of the most xenophobic countries in the world); the “Afghan Army is reasonably effective” (pure fiction); the “Afghan police show some hope” (more fiction); the “economy is better” (we are talking about one of the most impoverished and tribalized countries in the world); and the “elections were not all bad” (numerous villages turned out unanimous “votes” for President Hamid Karzai in places where no one actually voted).
O’Hanlon and Reidel conclude that “our strategy is not perfect yet” but some quick fixes will find “results” in 12 to 18 months.
Unfortunately, President Obama has not “gathered the best people” to deal with this problem and certainly doesn’t have the “most resources possible.” His national security team has little experience in foreign policy decision-making, let alone the difficult geopolitical terrain of Southwest Asia.
His leading policy adviser (General James Jones) and his leading intelligence advisers (Admiral Dennis Blair and Leon Panetta) were never known for profound thinking on national security; his Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) was chosen for domestic political reasons and has never demonstrated wisdom on tricky foreign policy matters; and his Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates) was also chosen for domestic political reasons and has already waffled on the question of more troops in Afghanistan (just as he did on the so-called troop surge in Iraq in the winter of 2006-2007).
The weakness of this team is one of the reasons why Obama has been slow to make serious policy initiatives on Russia, Iran, North Korea and the Middle East peace process, which beg for high-level US intervention.
President Bush invaded Iraq six years ago when there was no connection whatsoever between that country and American national, let alone vital, interests and now President Obama is prepared to commit greater forces and resources to Afghanistan where there is no connection between that country and American vital interests.
Our only concern should be making sure that al Qaeda or some other international terrorist force does not gain a safe haven in Afghanistan; it does not require a large-scale troop presence to achieve that mission.
Sea-based air power and air bases in the Persian Gulf could contain any government in Afghanistan, even a Taliban one, and disrupt al Qaeda operations and facilities there.
It’s time to join the contrarian voices in asking the President not to draw the US defense perimeter at the Hindu Kush.
Melvin A. Goodman, a regular contributor to The Public Record where this essay first appeared, is senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. He spent more than 42 years in the US Army, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense. His most recent book is Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan police find Iranian-made weapons, source says
By Barbara Starr
(CNN) -- Afghan National Police have seized a stockpile of Iranian-made weapons in the western Afghan city of Herat, a senior U.S. military official confirmed to CNN Thursday.
The official asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the intelligence surrounding Iran's involvement in Afghanistan.
The city of Herat is located in the province of the same name and lies close to Afghanistan's western border with Iran. The area has been relatively peaceful in recent months.
In the past, U.S. troops have discovered small numbers of Iranian-made weapons they believe came across that border but were shipped to insurgents in southern Afghanistan.
The cache, which was discovered August 27, includes a number of weapons and explosive components the United States believes were recently manufactured and smuggled into Afghanistan with the support of Iran's Al-Quds force, the official said.
"We believe the al-Quds force is still trying to destabilize Afghanistan," he said.
At the Pentagon daily briefing Wednesday in Washington, spokesman Geoff Morrell responded to a question about Iran's influence in Afghanistan, saying that Tehran is both helpful and unhelpful.
"They are neighbors and trade partners and have cultural and economic ties, in some cases religious ties, as well," Morrell said.
"But Afghanistan is not immune from Iranian meddling or from Iranian munitions showing up," he said, speaking of past incidents. "But it is most acutely a problem in Iraq."
Included in the stockpile were a number of explosives weapons, roadside bombs that are particularly manufactured in Iran to be able to penetrate armored vehicles, as well as Iranian-made 107mm rockets, firing devices and C-4 plastic explosives.
The official could not confirm the specific number of items seized but said all the material appeared to be in "very good, new condition" and much of it had Iranian manufacturing markings.
The official also confirmed that on August 17, an Iranian-made 107mm rocket was fired at U.S. troops just south of Herat.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Canadian governor general visits troops in Afghanistan
Wed Sep 9, 7:27 pm ET
MONTREAL (AFP) – Canada's Governor General Michaelle Jean visited Canadian troops serving in the Kandahar province of Afghanistan Wednesday, rounding out a two-day visit to the country, her office said.
The trip was the second time that the governor, who is also the commander in chief of Canada's armed forces, has visited the country.
Details of the visit and Jean's schedule had been kept secret for security reasons, but a statement from her office Wednesday said she had spent two days meeting with Canadian troops and Afghan civilians in Kandahar.
"It was vitally important for me to set foot in this country once again to encourage our troops and humanitarian workers who are working tirelessly to re-establish peace and rekindle hope in an ideal of justice in Afghanistan," Jean said in the statement.
"As commander-in-chief, I salute the many efforts being made as part of this dangerous mission that seeks to rebuild a country that has been ravaged by so much hardship, misery and inhumanity."
Canada currently has some 2,800 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, primarily in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar in the south, under a parliamentary mandate that expires in 2011.
Canada has lost 129 troops in Afghanistan since 2002, including two soldiers killed last week after a roadside bomb hit their convoy.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Embassy to mimic Afghan battleground
By Joseph Weber The Washington Times - Sep 09 8:52 PM
The courtyard of the Canadian Embassy, in the heart of the District, will become a combat scene later this month, with mock Taliban forces detonating improvised explosive devices inside a simulated Afghan village.
The series of five Hollywood-style demonstrations - including Afghan-American actors, fake shrapnel and medics rescuing the injured - is part of a two-day forum sponsored by the embassy to highlight the country's efforts in the eight-year-old war.
Canadian military officials and corporate organizers are confident about the safety and the need for staging the Sept. 23-24 demonstrations at the base of Capitol Hill, near federal courthouses and along Pennsylvania Avenue in Northwest Washington, about 11 blocks from the White House.
"My goal is to bring Afghanistan to Washington," said Lt. Col. Douglas Martin of the Canadian forces. "VIPs are going to be dropped off right in the middle of an Afghanistan town."
He also said the embassy has alerted neighbors and "everybody else who needs to know" and has received approval from the Department of Homeland Security and such city agencies as the mayor's office, the police department and the fire department.
A DHS spokesman said Wednesday only that the agency is aware of the event, and D.C. Deputy Fire Chief Kenneth Crosswhite said the application to use a pyrotechnic has been received but has yet to be approved.
Col. Martin said he had been thinking for nearly a year about how to show best the conditions faced by allied forces. Then he saw a demonstration this winter and said, "That's the Afghanistan I want to bring to the embassy. ... I don't think we can be dramatic enough to show what troops go through."
The staging, pyrotechnics and other technical aspects are being handled by Lockheed Martin and Strategic Operations Inc., which promise to bring the "magic of Hollywood" to the demonstrations.
"This is a safe, realistic environment," said Lockheed spokesman Warren Wright.
Mr. Wright hopes the demonstrations will show urban operations are less about "kicking down doors and shooting people" and more about surviving improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, "because the Taliban cannot fight us any other way."
He said the simulated IEDs will appear as a flash and sound like a firecracker or a backyard Fourth of July rocket and that shaved cork will be used for the dust and debris.
The first demonstration is scheduled for Sept. 23 at noon. The story was reported first by the Globe & Mail newspaper.
Kit Lavelle, executive vice president for Southern California-based Strategic Operations, part of Stu Segall Productions, said the company has helped train roughly 250,000 soldiers and has staged such demonstrations "hundreds of times."
He said that the injuries will have an authentic, "CSI quality," but that the embassy demonstrations will be more show than combat training.
Mr. Lavelle and Mr. Wright also said the goal of such training is primarily to help prepare and train soldiers.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Prosecutor eyeing war crimes in Afghanistan
By Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press Writer – Wed Sep 9, 6:56 pm ET
UNITED NATIONS – The prosecutor for the International Criminal Court said Wednesday he is collecting information on possible war crimes by NATO forces and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Luis Moreno Ocampo said he is also conducting preliminary inquiries on possible war crimes in Georgia, Colombia, Kenya, Ivory Coast, and by Israeli forces in Gaza.
Ocampo told a briefing on the emerging international criminal justice system that he plans to open four new investigations in the next three years, but he refused to disclose any details.
The International Criminal Court, which began operating in 2002, is the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal. Afghanistan is one of the 110 countries that have ratified the Rome treaty which created the tribunal and are therefore legally bound by its provisions.
Under the treaty, the court can step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
Ocampo said it has been "very difficult" to collect precise information about some of the alleged crimes, but his office has benefited from reports produced by non-governmental organizations who "arrived before us and provided information to us."
He said he has requested information from human rights groups and groups inside Afghanistan as well as the Afghan government — and would be "very open" to information from foreign governments.
Taliban fighters have been accused of many brutal killings. There have also been some accusations of U.S. forces in Afghanistan using excessive force and torturing prisoners.
He confirmed that allegations involved both the Taliban and NATO forces.
The Clinton administration signed the Rome Treaty establishing the court, but the Bush administration rescinded the U.S. signature, arguing that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecution of American troops.
Asked whether any NATO soldier is now a potential target of the court if he or she commits a war crime in a country under the court's jurisdiction, he replied that NATO's legal adviser was at the court's headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands last week discussing this issue.
In the training NATO is doing, Ocampo said, it is explaining to colonels that in the future they could end up before the court if they commit atrocities.
"That is the most important (thing) because these massive atrocities are planned. So if those who are planning know they will be prosecuted, they will do something different," he said.
Back to Top
Back to Top
All for Nothing
Newsweek By Ron Moreau 09/10/2009
President Hamid Karzai didn't need to steal the election—he would have won anyway.
Relations are quickly fraying between Kabul and its allies over what appears to be President Hamid Karzai's outright election theft. The Obama administration has told him not to declare victory, the U.N.-sponsored Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) has called for a partial recount, and good-government watchers are professing disappointment. Karzai is hardly the first president to want a victory badly enough to cheat. But the confounding thing is that he hardly needed to: he would have won legitimately even if he hadn't.
It's hardly clear—and we may never know—whether Karzai issued the vote-rigging orders himself, or whether the president's overzealous henchmen merely perpetrated the fraud on his behalf. But in any case, reports (from poll watchers, ECC investigators, and concerned citizens) show that he benefited from widespread vote-rigging. Karzai's provincial officials—from governors to district heads and police chiefs and their allied local warlords—are thought to have engaged in ballot-stuffing, intimidation, and other fraudulent shenanigans, particularly in the largely ethnic Pashtun south and east of the country, where the president, also an ethnic Pashtun, should have been the favorite son. The ECC has received more than 2,500 complaints of electoral irregularities, some 700 of which it deemed serious enough to affect the election's outcome.
So it was no surprise when the vote tallies began rolling in. This week the Afghan Independent Electoral Commission, the body that organized the Aug. 20 vote and is largely seen as being pro-Karzai, announced a sweeping victory for the incumbent. With 92 percent of the votes counted, he had captured 54 percent, just shy of the 55 percent he won in the country's first-ever presidential election in 2004. His nearest opponent, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, won 28 percent. As a result, the U.N.-sponsored ECC announced this week that its investigation had discovered "clear and convincing evidence of fraud," and the group ordered a partial recount in polling stations where more votes were cast than the expected number of voters. It also said it had already discarded 200,000 fraudulent votes. Clearing up the mess and declaring a winner could take weeks, commission officials say.
It's true that the widespread reports of tampering at the provincial and district level were not the only reason to doubt the validity of Karzai's rather easy romp past the magic mark of 50 percent of the vote—which allowed him to avoid a second-round runoff with his nearest challenger. Most Afghans agree that he is simply not that popular anymore. He certainly is not the same fresh and promising candidate who won the race handily five years ago. Back then, most Afghans had high expectations for the future and saw him as a unifying figure who could deliver foreign aid, security, and development. But his political fortunes have dipped drastically since then. His popularity has suffered as many Afghans accuse his government of mismanagement, if not incompetence, corruption, cronyism, and failure to deliver what he had promised.
Yet most Afghans would have voted for him warts and all, seeing no viable, unifying alternative in a country split along ethnic and regional fault lines: a preelection poll by a U.S.-government supported last group month put Karzai ahead of Abdullah, 44 percent to 26 percent. Abdullah, an ophthalmologist by trade, is too closely associated with the ethnic Tajik Northern Alliance militia that fought in the early 1990s Afghan civil war that laid to waste to much of Kabul. (Its senior commanders, now warlords, still control northern Afghanistan, Abdullah's main support base.) Karzai, too, cleverly chased those northern ethnic voters by striking morally questionable electoral alliances with the former Northern Alliance commanderMohammad Qasim Fahim, a Tajik who ran as his vice presidential candidate, and with notorious Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum. He also cut similar deals with the other main minority group, the Hazaras, promising cabinet posts and provincial appointments, the carving out of new provinces,
and even a new portrait (of a Northern Alliance commander) on the Afghan currency. Those alliances put Karzai, the scion of a Pashtun tribal leader, in a strong position. As the incumbent who dominated television time and the Afghan with the most name recognition, he was essentially a sure thing for a second-round runoff victory.
But apparently that wasn't good enough. Seeing their lucrative jobs and perks on the line, Karzai's minions in the field decided not to leave anything to chance. They were not about to allow a relatively free and fair vote in which Karzai, the tarnished incumbent, would have to win in a second-round matchup with Abdullah, whose popularity had been rising. The Taliban's brutal intimidation campaign in the south and east played into the hands of Karzai's anxious officials. With voters largely staying home out of fear, or perhaps even disinterest, and with electoral monitors frightened away, the field was wide open for officials to stuff ballots into the boxes of polling stations that saw few voters, or that hadn't opened, or didn't even exist, except on paper.
Karzai may not have been privy to his officials' plans. But the fact that he was unable to control their actions on Election Day says a lot about his ability to lead the country against an emboldened Taliban insurgency and a host of security, governance, social, and economic woes. If Karzai's officials can't deliver the Afghan people a legitimate election, it's no wonder that they can't deliver what most Afghans want most: security, good government, justice, and development.
Instead, what could have been a clean, if not easy, second-round victory for the president is turning into a political embarrassment of major proportions, further tarnishing the credibility of his administration and, in Afghan eyes, of democracy writ large. The American ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, told Karzai bluntly this week: "Don't declare victory." Indeed, a premature victory speech while the opposition is still crying foul could raise the ugly and destabilizing specter of Abdullah's angry and disappointed followers taking to the streets to protest what they see as a stolen election. But now that Karzai has a first-round victory seemingly at hand, it will be hard, if not impossible, for the U.S. and its allies to the urge him to do the right thing and accede to a runoff. It's a pickle he never had to get into.
Back to Top
Back to Top
AFGHANISTAN: Crackdown on Kabul beggars continues
10 Sep 2009 13:40:41 GMT
KABUL, 10 September 2009 (IRIN) - Afghanistan's anti-begging commission has arrested hundreds of beggars in Kabul in the past few months, but most are released if relatives guarantee they will not beg again, officials said.
The government outlawed street-begging in November 2008 [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=81298] and set up a commission - made up of different government bodies and the Afghan Red Crescent Society (ARCS) - to end street-begging in the capital.
"So far we have picked 706 beggars from the streets in Kabul [since January]," Nawroz Ali Alizada, director of ARCS's welfare houses, told IRIN on 10 September, adding that most of those arrested were women, children, male drug addicts and people with disabilities.
The anti-begging commission says street-begging is linked to child abuse and prostitution.
Despite the arrests, many beggars are still plying their trade.
Afghanistan is the fifth least developed country, with 42 percent of its estimated 27 million people living on less than US$1 a day, according to the UN Development Programme.
However, some people beg for reasons beyond immediate survival, officials say: "Many of the beggars we pick up off the streets have fancy mobile phones and large amounts of cash in their pockets," said Karima Salek, director of Kabul women's affairs department and a member of the anti-begging commission.
At least two beggars interviewed by IRIN - an elderly woman and a seven-year-old boy - said they only just managed to survive. "Most of the time I am starving and ill," the old woman said.
Addicts
Many of the beggars are young male drug addicts [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=85920] deported from Iran and Pakistan. "The number of addicted beggars is fast increasing and it's very worrying," said ARCS's Alizada.
Over 145 addicted beggars have been referred to the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) for treatment and rehabilitation but members of the anti-begging commission acknowledged shortcomings in the process.
"We need meaningful treatment and rehabilitation services for the addicted beggars, but the Health Ministry and partner NGOs only keep them for 10 days," said Alizada.
However, MoPH spokesman Farid Raid insisted the ministry was doing a creditable job: "The MoPH in partnership with several supporting NGOs has been delivering essential services to treat and rehabilitate drug addicts."
Database
The commission keeps a database of identification details (photo, address and ID cards) for each beggar, as well as details of his or her relatives, in a bid to thwart repeat offenders.
"If we find a recurring case we will refer it to the police for appropriate legal action because begging is illegal," said Alizada.
Prior to release, beggars are held at an ARCS-sponsored centre where boarding and lodging facilities are available free of charge, but ARCS says it cannot afford to maintain the facility for much longer without an injection of donor funds.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Collateral damage of every sort
Sep 10th 2009 | BERLIN AND KUNDUZ From The Economist print edition
The West’s mission in Afghanistan is under attack on many fronts
WITH tension high after a difficult and partly rigged election, the last thing NATO forces in Afghanistan needed was for scores of Afghan civilians to be killed by yet another fumbled attack. But on September 4th a German commander called in an American air raid near Kunduz, in the north, against Taliban insurgents who had stolen a pair of fuel trucks. Scores were killed, not all of them Taliban. The repercussions were felt across Afghanistan, and in Germany itself.
Four of the five main parties contesting the parliamentary election in Germany on September 27th support the deployment of troops in Afghanistan. But most voters do not. So a conspiracy of silence has kept one of the touchiest issues out of the political debate. The silence has now been shattered. Citing a NATO fact-finding mission, the Washington Post reported that about 125 people were killed, many of them civilians, on the basis of intelligence provided by a single Afghan informant.
General Stanley McChrystal, the new American commander of ISAF, the NATO-led force, has stressed the importance of reducing civilian casualties, and was said to be “incandescent”. The German government’s first reaction was confused. The defence minister, Franz Josef Jung, insisted that only Taliban died, but later admitted that this might not be so. The defence ministry says 56 people died.
Often mocked for confining its 4,200 troops to the relatively safe north, Germany now stands accused of overreacting when a threat appears. It has responded angrily. The defence ministry stands by the decision to destroy potential “rolling bombs” that could have been used against German troops. The air raid took place less than four miles (6.4km) from the German forces’ base.
German politicians have tried to portray the Afghan deployment not as a combat mission but as a humanitarian one. That claim now rings hollow. Germany’s participation in ISAF must be debated anew by the parliament, the Bundestag, in December. There is little doubt that it will be renewed, but pressure is growing for an exit strategy. The chancellor, Angela Merkel, has joined Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, and France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, in calling for an international conference on how to shift responsibility for security from ISAF to the Afghan government. But America is expected to ask for more from its allies, not less.
One reason for this is the deterioration in security both in the insurgency-ridden south and in Kunduz and some other parts of the north. It was in the plains around Kunduz that the Taliban surrendered to the Northern Alliance in late 2001. Restricted from joining combat operations, German forces there have tried to concentrate on development projects. But last year saw a fivefold increase in “security incidents” in the ethnically diverse province. This year has been even worse. In Chahar Dara district, an ethnic-Pushtun stronghold, aid workers are leaving and Afghan contractors are often forced to pay protection money to prevent the kind of roadside ambushes and improvised explosive devices that are aimed at German troops.
It was there that a British journalist, Stephen Farrell, was held this week after being kidnapped while investigating the air strike. He was later rescued by NATO soldiers in a pre-dawn raid. But, further souring attitudes to foreign forces, his Afghan colleague, Sultan Munadi, and two other Afghan civilians died in the operation. A British soldier was also killed.
In Chahar Dara militants travel around in their dozens in open lorries. They extort food and taxes from local people, often taking more than 10% of their income. They have also begun to man checkpoints on the highway that runs south from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, a vital alternative to the Khyber Pass as an ISAF supply line.
For all its modern firepower, armoured vehicles and thousands of troops, the German army has made little headway against the militants. In July a 2,000-strong clearing operation tried to pacify Chahar Dara before the presidential election on August 20th. Locals say the militants, including some from Uzbekistan and the Afghan south, left the area only to return later, and more are coming every month. Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, has reportedly called on his fighters to open a new front in the north to stretch coalition forces.
Violence across the region surged in the run-up to the election. On polling day itself rockets were fired into Kunduz city for the first time since 2001. Neighbouring Baghlan saw the worst bloodshed of any province.
President Hamid Karzai seems certain of winning his second term, despite charges of massive vote-rigging. By mid-week, results showed him with 54% of the votes, after nearly all had been counted. But a United Nations-backed watchdog ordered a partial recount, and final results are not expected until the end of the month. With so much evidence of fraud, supporters of Mr Karzai’s main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, may not accept the victory. Unrest is still possible. And in the north, a region where security has long been taken for granted, Taliban advances are rattling foreign forces’ resolve.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Here's what happens when the winners lose
Chicago Tribune By Robert C. Koehler 09/10/2009
The situation in Afghanistan is serious. We're getting "out-governed" by an enemy so ruthless it's bringing services to a desperate people ignored by the legitimate government we installed.
But our eight-year quagmire excuse me, war can still be won, says Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in that country, who recently completed a review of the situation: "Success," he commented, "is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort."
Before I salute crisply and shout "Yes, sir!" I'd like to quote from an essay by Robert E. Draper called "Keys to Real Success -- Going Beyond 'Winning' and 'Losing' in Business With a Positive Attitude." I'm stuck, see, on the concept of "winning" this war, because human intelligence has mostly moved beyond this concept in every area of life except international relations, which remains a multitrillion-dollar global bastion of Bronze Age thinking.
"It is important," writes Draper, "to first realize that success, as most businesspeople know it, is always trailed by the shadow of the fear of failure and, therefore, is not real success at all. That's because real success cannot be found in a 'winning' that includes a potential for loss. . . . To succeed at work requires adopting the mind-set . . . of good card players," he goes on. "Like them, you play not for occasional fits of excitement, but to survive. This requires that you give long-range thinking priority in your mind, and that you never perceive a current gain that will be trailed by a long-term loss to be acceptable or even attractive."
OK, let's jump now to a refugee camp in Kabul, where journalist Norman Solomon introduces us to a 7-year-old girl named Guljumma Khan, who lost her arm in a U.S. bombing raid, and whose father has gotten nowhere trying to get redress or the least support from the United States, the United Nations or the Afghan government to obtain medical assistance for her or take care of his family.
Furthermore, Solomon writes, "Basics like food arrive at the camp only sporadically." The girl's father "pointed to a plastic bag containing a few pounds of rice. It was his responsibility to divide the rice for the 100 families" in the refugee camp.
"Is the U.S. government willing to really help Guljumma, who now lives each day and night in the squalor of a refugee camp?" asks Solomon. "Is the government willing to spend the equivalent of the cost of a single warhead to assist her?"
Morally speaking, what to do is remarkably obvious, graspable by virtually every human being on the planet, even, I believe, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates. When pressed by reporters following news of the McChrystal report's completion, Gates said, according to Reuters, that "any recommendation for more forces would have to address his concerns that the foreign military presence in Afghanistan could become too large and be seen by Afghans as a hostile occupying force."
There are approximately 103,000 U.S./NATO troops in Afghanistan now; the country has been bombed (15,000 tons and counting) and occupied for eight years, with maybe 8,000 civilians killed in the process, many more injured and displaced -- and the U.S. secretary of defense feels we're pushing the limits of Afghan tolerance. Up the troop ante and they'll think we're a hostile presence.
Well, Team Bush never equivocated in its Bronze Age ferocity. Maybe, I initially thought, Gates' flicker of intelligent uncertainty -- his feint in the direction of sanity -- can be counted as progress, not by the desperate and starving Afghans, perhaps, but by the Obama voting base. So far, this is the extent of the "change" and "hope" we've gotten from his administration in the ongoing, disastrous wars of choice he inherited.
Because the Taliban, with a counter-agenda to advance, is incorporating a hearts-and-minds approach into its strategy for victory, the U.S. and NATO are grasping that they have to do likewise. So, on second thought, it's probably not moral progress at all, just further evidence that anonymous geocorporate interests control international relations.
When our leaders, even those who promise peace, sit in the driver's seat of war, they surrender their ordinary humanity -- their consciences -- and assume the mind set and agenda of those anonymous interests. In Afghanistan, this agenda includes regional dominance, the flow of oil (the pipeline) and, as with every war, the stoking of the military economy. This is what "winning" in Afghanistan really means -- armless 7-year-olds be damned -- and McChrystal is right. It's still possible. Even probable.
War commands debate on its own terms. Read or listen to the mainstream coverage: It conveys the details of war in a context devoid of moral intelligence. Yet for ordinary humanity, wars can never be "won." They can only be ended and, ultimately, transcended.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan: Judge deplores violence against women
Rome, 10 Sept. (AKI) - The scourge of violence suffered by Afghan women is a grave problem that requires decisive action, according to one of the country's magistrates. Marzia Basel expressed her views at an international conference on violence against women held in Rome this week.
"Violence suffered by women in Afghanistan is a dramatic problem that should be tackled in a serious way," Basel told the conference at the Italian foreign ministry on Thursday.
The G8 International Conference on Violence Against Women was hosted by Italy, which is the current president of the G8 group of the world's seven most industrialised nations plus Russia.
Basel said she was "surprised" by a law signed last Sunday by Afghan president Hamid Karzai, aimed at preventing violence against women in the country.
But she described it as "an important step forward by the government to defend Afghan women."
"At last, penal sanctions have been enacted against those who commit crimes against women," said Basel.
Drafting of the law began two years ago.
It is based on articles of the Afghan constitution which enshrine the duty of the state to respect and protect the "inviolable" liberty and dignity of all of its citizens", and "ensure physical and psychological well-being of a family, especially of child and mother, upbringing of children and elimination of traditions contrary to the provisions of Islam."
Since the ousting of the Taliban in 2001, there have been important changes to Afghanistan's civil code that improve women's rights, but there are still legal obstacles preventing equality with men, Basel said.
"Afghan women's condition remains dire due to forced marriages, and physical and sexual abuse especially from spouses in rural areas," she said.
She called on the international community to back human rights in Afghanistan and urged a media campaign against child brides, a practice which has been outlawed in the country.
"It is not the laws protecting women that we are lacking but their implementation," Basel stressed.
Women's rights activists last month attacked Karzai for signing a law that allows minority Shia Muslim husbands to refuse food and money to their wives if they deny them sex.
The activists alleged that Karzai used a constitutional loophole to enact the law. An earlier version sparked international outrage and was described as oppressive and a return to Taliban-era repression of women.
Karzai was seen to have enacted the law to appease conservative Shia clergy ahead of the 20 August presidential election, which he appears set to win.
Nearly 20 percent of Afghans are Shia Muslim.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Taliban prefer not to be known as Taliban
PakTribune.Com Thursday September 10, 2009
PESHAWAR - Afghan Taliban prefer their organisation to be known as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan instead of being simply called Taliban.
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, or Amarat-i-Islami Afghanistan, was the name given by Taliban to their homeland when they were in power from 1996-2001. The Taliban still use that name and their organisation is called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. In Pashto, the Taliban refer to it as “Da Afghanistan Islami Amarat.”
Though the name Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is being used for the last many years, a senior Afghan Taliban official said they now prefer not to address themselves as Taliban. “In our declarations or in statements by our leader Mulla Muhammad Omar, you would have noted the absence of the word Taliban. Our leadership and shuras refer to our organisation as Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and to our fighters as mujahideen,” he explained while talking to our sources from an undisclosed location.
Requesting anonymity, the Afghan Taliban official said one of the reasons for not using the name of Taliban was the growing stigma attached to it. He noted that the Taliban had been demonised by their enemies and maligned to no end. Also, he pointed out that some people had misused the name of Taliban and committed crimes. “This had brought a bad name to the Taliban. The term Taliban no longer represented the madrassa students who rose against the Afghan mujahideen in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s and challenged and defeated their corrupt and cruel commanders,” he stressed.
Other Afghan Taliban members argued that they needed to remain distinct from the Pakistani Taliban. They felt it sometimes became difficult to differentiate between the two as all of them were lumped together and known as Taliban. “The Afghan Taliban are fighting Western forces that have occupied Afghanistan. It is jehad against non-Muslims and occupiers. We cannot say the same about the new groups of Taliban fighting in places outside Afghanistan,” one of the Taliban members commented.
The Pakistani Taliban, it may be mentioned, are condemned by critics for fighting their own army and law-enforcement agencies and destabilising Pakistan. In their publications also, the Afghan Taliban make it a point to use the term Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Their Pashto journal, Morchal, which carries news of Taliban military operations, always refers to their movement as the “Da Afghanistan Islami Amarat.” The same is the case in their Arabic journal, Al Somood, the publication named Srak published by the Taliban-run Islamic Literary Group, and the weekly magazine, Ilham, published by the cultural department of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
Though most of the Pakistani Taliban organised them on the platform of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) under the leadership of Baitullah Mahsud in December 2007, they continued to look to the Afghan Taliban for inspiration and guidance. All important Pakistani Taliban commanders publicly expressed allegiance to the Mulla Muhammad Omar.
Back to Top
Back to Top
US bans alcohol at army bases in Afghanistan
Press TV September 9, 2009
A top US commander has banned alcohol at its headquarters in Kabul after troops were found to be too drunk in the wake of a recent deadly air strike in Afghanistan.
US General Stanley McChrystal tried to contact his subordinates after a NATO strike killed 125 civilians, but too many had been "partying it up", the Times reported.
Based on report, McChrystal admonished the staff for not having "their heads in the right place" a few hours after the lethal attack in the war-ravaged country.
The senior commander has reportedly put a ban on drinking after troops could not respond quickly to a new lethal bombing.
At least 125 people, many of whom were civilians, were killed and scores of others injured on Friday after NATO warplanes targeted stolen fuel tankers on orders of a German commander in the northern Kunduz province.
The NATO command said the air raid had targeted two fuel tankers allegedly hijacked by Taliban-linked militants.
The incident drew international condemnation and world leaders called for a probe into the air strike.
Pressure is mounting on the US and its western allies to pull out troops from the country amid growing civilians and troops' causalities.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Former manager says ArmorGroup lowballed bid, cut corners on embassy security in Afghanistan
Associated Press September 10, 2009 - 8:19 AM
WASHINGTON - A former manager for the security contractor protecting the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan says the company lowballed its bid for the work and then failed to hire enough guards or fix faulty equipment.
The allegations come after an independent watchdog group said last week that ArmorGroup guards were subjected to abuse and hazing by supervisors who created a climate of fear and intimidation.
On Thursday, James Gordon, former director of operations at ArmorGroup North America, alleged the company bid too low in order to win the contract and then cut corners to keep profits up.
Gordon says he was fired for reporting the problems. He also claims ArmorGroup withheld from Congress information about employees who went to brothels. Wackenhut Services, ArmorGroup's parent company, had no immediate comment.
Back to Top
Back to Top
U.K. Majority Opposes Afghanistan Involvement, Poll Indicates
By Alan Purkiss
Sept. 10 (Bloomberg) -- British troops should never have been sent to Afghanistan, according to 53 percent of people questioned in an ICM public-opinion poll carried out for the National Army Museum, the London-based Times reported.
Opposition to the military deployment in Iraq was even greater, at 60 percent, the newspaper said.
Support for the Afghan involvement was 25 percent, and 20 percent in the case of Iraq, the Times said.
Two thousand people were questioned in the poll, the newspaper said.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Texas couple pleads guilty in Afghanistan fraud
Thursday September 10, 2009, 9:09 am EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Houston couple has pleaded guilty in an alleged plot to defraud the U.S. while working as contractors on rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan.
Seventy-three-year-old Delmar Dwayne Spier and his wife, 60-year-old Barbara Edens Spier, pleaded guilty Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Washington.
Their plea agreements require them to forfeit $3 million in proceeds from the fraud. Sentencing has not been set.
According to court documents, the Spiers were officers in Houston-based United States Protection and Investigations (USPI), a subcontractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Dwayne Spier admitted defrauding the United States by obtaining reimbursement for inflated expenses on rental vehicles, fuel and security personnel. Barbara Spiers admitted to making up invoices from fictitious companies.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Spain sets five-year target for Afghan withdrawal
MADRID, Sept. 9 (Xinhua) -- Spanish Defense Minister Carme Chacon said on Wednesday that she hoped the country would be able to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan within five years.
The remarks followed Spain's recent announcement that it would send another 220 soldiers to the Central Asian country to help in the continued struggle against the Taliban.
The reinforcement will be ratified by the Spanish parliament on Friday despite criticism from the opposition Popular Party.
Speaking on Cadena Ser radio, Chacon also tried to put a time limit on the deployment. "We need to fix times and a horizon to say that we will have achieved our objective in less than five years."
"That timescale seems reasonable to Spain," said the minister, who stressed the peacekeeping mission of the Spanish troops in Afghanistan.
"They will be involved in the establishment of stability, development and reconstruction of the country. We want the next elections in the country to be set up by Afghans themselves," she said, before making reference to accusations of fraud hanging over the Aug. 20 Afghan presidential elections.
"We hope that the Complaints Commission will eliminate those votes that appear to be false. We are waiting to see whether or not there will be a second round of voting," said Chacon.
With votes from 91.6 percent polling stations already counted, incumbent Afghan President Hamid Karzai has won 54.1 percent of the vote, moving closer to winning re-election, the Afghan Independent Election Commission announced on Tuesday.
Karzai major rival Abdullah Abdullah has garnered 28.3 percent of the vote.
Karzai needs to receive over 50 percent of support to avoid a run-off.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Pakistani president rejects Obama's Pakistan-Afghan policy
ISLAMABAD, Sept. 10 (Xinhua) -- Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has rejected U.S. President Obama's strategy of linking policy on Pakistan and Afghanistan in an effort to end the Taliban insurgency, the local NNI news agency reported Thursday.
Talking to a private TV channel, Zardari said that Pakistan and Afghanistan are two different countries that could not be jointly treated through such policies.
He said that Pakistan has very little time to coup with threats facing to the very existence of the country.
He said that the war against terrorism would be harmed if Pakistan is not provided foreign assistance soon.
"If financial assistance to Pakistan was not dispatched on time then it would compel to do some cutting in development expenditure to fill the losses of terror war," said President Zardari.
The Obama administration unveiled in late March a new strategy on fighting militant groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan, considering the Afghan-Pakistani cooperation crucial to the success of its new policy for the region.
Reports said Zardari' s comments reflect Pakistan's unwillingness to be aligned in the joint policy framework with neighboring Afghanistan, an approach referred to as "Af-Pak."
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).