 |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serving you since 1998 | ||||||||||||
|
|
US diplomat 'forced out' over stance on Afghan election fraud
Officials say Peter Galbraith removed from UN post after pressing for inquiry into results heavily favouring Karzai
Peter Beaumont in London and Jon Boone in Kabul guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 September 2009 14.08 BST
The most senior American diplomat at the UN mission in Afghanistan appears to have been forced out of his post after failing to secure an investigation into claims of widespread fraud favouring Hamid Karzai in the August presidential elections.
Deputy UN envoy to Afghanistan 'not coming back'
Wed Sep 30, 6:40 am ET
KABUL (AFP) – The deputy UN special envoy to Afghanistan will not be returning to his post in Kabul following a row with his boss over the country's fraud-tainted election, a UN official said Wednesday.
U.N. official ousted after Afghan vote fraud dispute
By Heidi Vogt ASSOCIATED PRESS
KABUL (AP) -- The top American official at the U.N. mission in Afghanistan is losing his job after he disagreed with superiors over how to deal with widespread fraud charges from the presidential election,
UN 'to remove Afghanistan envoy'
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 12:02 UK BBC News
A senior UN official in Afghanistan is to be removed from his post following a row about the country's presidential election, the BBC has learned.
UN: "Decision time" for Afghanistan
By Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press Writer – Tue Sep 29, 3:42 pm ET
UNITED NATIONS – A top U.N. envoy warned Tuesday that Afghanistan was facing "decision-time," including certification of results of the flawed presidential elections and its decision on whether to pursue
White House Begins Afghan War Strategy Review
Obama administration unexpectedly decided to review its strategy in Afghanistan after a series of recent setbacks in the war, including fraud allegations following last month's presidential elections
The Wall Street Journal via FOXNews.com Wednesday, September 30, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The White House began its review of the Afghan war strategy in earnest Tuesday, with senior administration officials meeting via videoconference with the top commander in Kabul, Gen.
Pressure increases on Obama over Afghanistan
From Ed Hornick
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama is under increasing pressure to decide whether the United States will commit more troops and resources to the conflict in Afghanistan.
At least 22 Taliban killed in Afghanistan: ministry
Wed Sep 30, 7:01 am ET
KABUL (AFP) – More than 20 Taliban were killed in a massive operation in western Afghanistan, the interior ministry said Wednesday, as the United States considers sending more troops to battle a worsening insurgency.
Pay cut prompting many Afghan soldiers to quit
The Canadian Press Wednesday Sep. 30, 2009 7:23 AM ET
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — At a time when every experienced Afghan soldier on the ground in Kandahar is worth his weight in gold -- many are leaving over something as simple as a pay dispute.
MoD: Efforts under way to secure N Afghanistan
KABUL, Sept. 30 (Xinhua) -- The anti-government militants have been tried to expand their activities in relatively peaceful north provinces, but efforts are under way to overcome these problems, said spokesman of Defense Ministry on Wednesday.
Report: Next weeks crucial for Afghanistan
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 29 (UPI) -- The coming weeks will be crucial for Afghanistan, the United Nations' top envoy to the country told the U.N. Security Council Tuesday.
Afghanistan's drug czar - world's toughest job
By Phil Zabriskie, contributor Fortune via Yahoo! FinanceOn Wednesday September 30, 2009, 9:13 am EDT
With the sun shining brightly, a host of Afghan officials, foreign diplomats, and members of the press take their seats beneath a newly erected red tent. After a prayer and some introductory remarks, a general steps to the podium
Obama: Don't give up on Afghanistan
He should approve the additional troops General McChrystal wants.
By John Hughes Christian Science Monitor from the September 30, 2009 edition
Provo, Utah - During the presidential election campaign, Barack Obama maintained that Iraq was the wrong war for the US and Afghanistan was the right one.
Mullah Omar not in Pakistan, Taliban commander says
Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:42am EDT By Saeed Ali Achakzai
CHAMAN, Pakistan, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar is not in Pakistan and the United States is only saying he is there to justify an expansion of its drone missile strikes, a Taliban commander said on Wednesday.
What we must promise Afghanistan
National Post Terry Glavin Wednesday, September 30, 2009
It is heartening to see that the consensus of silence that has united Canada's political leaders on the Afghanistan question is at long last receiving some public notice. The sound of crickets is pretty well all we've been hearing ever since the January 2008 release of John Manley's
Afghanistan opens new offices of UN Mission, Consulate General in New York
Xinhua www.chinaview.cn 2009-09-30
NEW YORK - Afghanistan on Tuesday opened the new office of the Afghan Permanent Mission to the United Nations and the Afghan Consulate General in New York.
What's next for Canada in Afghanistan?
Globe and Mail J. L. Granatstein Wednesday, Sep. 30, 2009
The Afghan war is not going well.
Canadian and allied casualties mount daily, improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers proliferate, and the Taliban seem to be extending their reach across the country from south to north and east to west.
Taliban film shows leader is dead
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 BBC News
The Taliban in Pakistan have released a video confirming that their former leader Baitullah Mehsud is dead.
Half of Finns supports peace mission in Afghanistan
HELSINKI, Sept. 30 (Xinhua) -- About half of the Finnish people believed the country should continue its peace mission in Afghanistan, according to a survey by the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat on Wednesday.
Girl killed in RAF leaflet drop in Afghanistan
Wed Sep 30, 4:02 am ET
LONDON (AFP) – A young Afghan girl died after a box of public information leaflets, dropped by a Royal Air Force plane over Afghanistan, landed on her, a newspaper said Wednesday.
Suicide bomber kills American in Afghanistan
Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:07am EDT
KHOST, Afghanistan, Sept 30 (Reuters) - A suicide bomber rammed a car into a military convoy of foreign forces in southeastern Afghanistan on Wednesday, killing one American, officials said.
Young Afghans see hopes crushed
By Martin Patience BBC News, Kabul Tuesday, 29 September 2009
"I want to be a doctor," says Nagina, six, wearing a small white headscarf.
"I want to be a pilot," says Hemat, eight, who adds that he is top of his class in maths.
Afghan recovery report: Balkh power struggle leaves locals fearful
Source: Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) 29 Sep 2009
Residents of Balkh province braced for violence as two prominent figures square off over the elections.
By Ahmad Kawoosh in Balkh (ARR No. 338, 29-Sep-09)
The unresolved presidential election appears to be worsening a dispute between the powerful governor of Balkh province and a local rival that observers fear will soon spiral out of control into open conflict.
Afghan immigrant pleads not guilty to bombing conspiracy
Denver airport shuttle driver Najibullah Zazi appears in federal court in New York and is being held without bail in what authorities call the first Al Qaeda-linked plot on U.S. soil since 9/11.
By Tina Susman Los Angeles Times September 30, 2009
Reporting from New York - An Afghan immigrant charged with conspiring to bomb U.S. targets in an attack possibly intended to coincide with the Sept. 11 anniversary pleaded not guilty in federal court Tuesday.
Back to Top
US diplomat 'forced out' over stance on Afghan election fraud
Officials say Peter Galbraith removed from UN post after pressing for inquiry into results heavily favouring Karzai
Peter Beaumont in London and Jon Boone in Kabul guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 September 2009 14.08 BST
The most senior American diplomat at the UN mission in Afghanistan appears to have been forced out of his post after failing to secure an investigation into claims of widespread fraud favouring Hamid Karzai in the August presidential elections.
According to UN officials speaking anonymously, Peter Galbraith, the deputy UN special envoy, is being removed from his post following a row with his Norwegian boss, Kai Eide, over the issue. Galbraith had taken an outspoken line towards the allegations of fraud in the 20 August election, in the process angering Karzai, the incumbent president.
Galbraith – responsible for electoral matters at the UN mission in Kabul – has already left the Afghan capital. UN officials previously acknowledged the dispute but attempted to play it down as a difference over "style".
Whether or not Galbraith returns in the short term, UN sources say the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, was persuaded to end Galbraith's mission after ministers in Karzai's government apparently said they could no longer work with him.
Eide has confirmed that Galbraith left the country after an argument, but denied he asked the secretary general to remove him. In an email to the BBC, Galbraith denied he had been fired, but he is not expected to return to Kabul.
The recall of Galbraith would almost certainly have required the agreement of the Obama administration and has come as a surprise following the earlier demand by Obama's own envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, that Karzai respect the proper election process.
US criticism of the Karzai administration emerged in the leaked confidential report prepared by the US commander in the country, General Stanley McChrystal, which warned that corruption within the Karzai government was as big a threat as the Taliban.
The exit of Galbraith, a highly regarded diplomat who first came to prominence in the Balkans, would appear to further reduce Obama's scope for manoeuvre in Afghanistan at a time when he is facing calls from his military commander for up to 40,000 more soldiers. The delivery of such a prominent scalp for Karzai – if confirmed – would underline how little leverage the international community has over his regime, widely regarded by the international community as being part of the country's problem.
Perhaps significantly, Galbraith's reported removal comes within days of reports that the US and its allies decided to accept Karzai remaining as president even if the investigation into voter fraud meant his share of the vote falling below 50%, which had been expected to trigger a run-off with his closest rival, Abdullah Abdullah.
Galbraith was formerly the US ambassador to Croatia and helped negotiate the end of the war in that country. He served as director of political, constitutional and electoral affairs for the UN transitional administration in East Timor from 2000 to 2001. Outspoken in his criticism of the conduct of the US war in Iraq during the Bush administration, he resigned from government to write The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End.
Within hours of the news that Galbraith was not expected to return to Kabul, a member of the UN's political affairs unit had resigned. Others are likely to follow among the diplomats who liked Galbraith personally and backed his tough approach to officials of the Afghan Independent Election Commission (IEC), who many believe are complicit in attempts to rubber-stamp a Karzai first round victory.
One UN source said the mood inside the mission was "far from happy" while another said the west appeared resigned to dealing with a tainted president.
Galbraith left Afghanistan shortly after a stormy meeting in mid-September attended by a large number of election monitoring organisations and other groups where he attacked IEC officials for not making preparations for a run-off.
A UN diplomat said Galbraith's strategy had been to try to compel the IEC to investigate the huge number of suspicious ballots before announcing preliminary results that put Karzai well over the 50% mark.
Galbraith was reported to have been furious that the IEC first voted to apply a set of fraud standards to its count that would have excluded tens of thousands of votes, only to reverse the decision the next day, apparently following political pressure.
His tough stance prompted Eide, once a close friend of Galbraith, to ask him to leave the country for a short period. Eide is far less confrontational and has adopted a cautious approach to navigating through the aftermath of an election now widely regarded as irreparably tainted.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Deputy UN envoy to Afghanistan 'not coming back'
Wed Sep 30, 6:40 am ET
KABUL (AFP) – The deputy UN special envoy to Afghanistan will not be returning to his post in Kabul following a row with his boss over the country's fraud-tainted election, a UN official said Wednesday.
Peter Galbraith, who left Kabul earlier this month after a dispute over how fraud allegations in the election should be dealt with, "won't be coming back to Kabul," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
It was not clear if Galbraith, an American, had been sacked from his post, which he had only held for a few months, or if he would be moved to another position within the United Nations.
UN officials in Kabul told AFP that Galbraith's status was unclear.
"We're aware of the reports and an announcement of this nature would come from the secretary general's office in New York," spokesman Dan McNorton said.
"At this stage there has been no announcement," he added.
The BBC's website quoted an email it said had been received from Galbraith, in which he said: "The secretary general appointed me and has not fired me so far as I know."
Differences between Galbraith and the UN's special representative to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, became public earlier this month, when Galbraith abruptly left Kabul to return to the United States.
Diplomatic sources in Kabul said at the time that Galbraith and Eide, a Norwegian, had differed in their approach to dealing with the allegations of widespread fraud tainting Afghanistan's August 20 presidential election.
The anonymous UN official Wednesday described Galbraith as more aggressive in his approach to dealing with the allegations, which have been principally aimed at President Hamid Karzai, who leads preliminary results with almost 55 percent of the valid vote.
His nearest rival, Abdullah Abdullah -- who has been loudest in accusing Karzai of orchestrated vote-rigging -- trails on around 28 percent.
About 10 percent of the ballot is being recounted and audited, in the hope of having a final result by October 7, officials close to the process say.
"There was a different approach" between Eide and Galbraith, the UN official said, adding that Eide was in favour of the status quo, allowing Afghan electoral authorities to follow their own path towards a final outcome.
Galbraith, on the other hand, had adopted a more "proactive" approach, favouring other options that included a total recount, he said.
Back to Top
Back to Top
U.N. official ousted after Afghan vote fraud dispute
By Heidi Vogt ASSOCIATED PRESS
KABUL (AP) -- The top American official at the U.N. mission in Afghanistan is losing his job after he disagreed with superiors over how to deal with widespread fraud charges from the presidential election, people familiar with the decision said Wednesday. The U.S. diplomat denied he had been fired.
The delay in final results from the Aug. 20 vote has led to fears of a power vacuum in the Afghan government that could endure until spring, even as Taliban violence against U.S. and NATO soldiers and Afghan civilians continues to rise. On Wednesday, an American service member died in a suicide car attack on a military convoy in Khost province, near the Pakistani border.
Two U.N. officials confirmed that Peter Galbraith was being recalled by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon from his job as deputy special representative for Afghanistan. They spoke anonymously because the information has not been officially released.
In an e-mail to the British Broadcasting Corp., which first reported Galbraith had lost his job, Galbraith said: "The secretary general appointed me and has not fired me so far as I know."
A U.N. spokesman declined to confirm reports that Galbraith was fired.
"We are aware of the reports. An announcement of this nature would usually come from the secretary-general's office in New York, but so far there has been no announcement," Dan McNorton said. Galbraith oversaw electoral matters for the U.N. before and after the vote. He has been in the United States since mid-September, when he left Afghanistan following a dispute with his boss over the best way to handle vote fraud investigations. Both Galbraith and his boss, top U.N. Afghan envoy Kai Eide, said then he was expected to resume his duties in Afghanistan.
Neither Galbraith nor Eide have offered details of the disagreement, though Eide has confirmed that the two split over election issues. "Primarily, we had a somewhat different approach to the election process," he told the Associated Press. He declined to elaborate.
The vote has been marred by charges of ballot stuffing and tally rigging that have delayed final results for weeks and opened the possibility of a government in limbo well into the spring. Preliminary results show President Hamid Karzai winning with 54.6 percent of the vote, but enough votes are questionable that he could dip below the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff with his top challenger.
Election officials have said a runoff needs to be held by late October to avoid winter snows that block whole sections of the mountainous country until spring.
Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission, which is in charge of running the election, voted overwhelmingly to apply a set of fraud standards to their count that likely would have excluded tens of thousands of votes, only to reverse the decision next day, saying it lacked the authority to enforce the standards, said Galbraith, who had advised the commission. He said at the time the reversal was part of his reason for leaving.
"I leave it to others to decide the plausibility of their decision," he said in a phone interview from Vermont in mid-September.
At the U.N. on Tuesday, Ban said Galbraith had not been removed from his post at that time, but declined to comment on whether Galbraith would remain in the position.
Galbraith worked for the U.N. in East Timor in 2000-2001 and as the U.S. ambassador to Croatia from 1993 to 1998.
Separately on Wednesday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he would do whatever is necessary in response to calls from the American commander in Afghanistan for more troops.
U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal -- who also commands NATO forces -- is expected to ask for 40,000 more troops to fight the Taliban-led insurgency and help Afghanistan rebuild.
When asked on Sky News if he was prepared to commit more British troops, Brown said "we will do whatever is necessary."
NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen has stopped short of calling for more combat troops to be sent to Afghanistan, as the Obama administration currently is discussing.
But Fogh Rasmussen says more needs to be done to prepare Afghan military and civilian forces to secure and rebuild their nation.
Back to Top
Back to Top
UN 'to remove Afghanistan envoy'
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 12:02 UK BBC News
A senior UN official in Afghanistan is to be removed from his post following a row about the country's presidential election, the BBC has learned.
UN officials said Peter Galbraith had not been fired but would be removed from the mission.
Mr Galbraith, a US diplomat, said: "The secretary general appointed me and has not fired me so far as I know."
Mr Galbraith angered Afghan President Hamid Karzai by reportedly calling for a complete recount of the vote.
Last week the top UN Afghan envoy, Kai Eide, said Mr Galbraith had left the country after a row between them.
But he denied he had ordered him to go.
UN sources say Secretary General Ban Ki-moon decided to end Mr Galbraith's mission after it became clear he was no longer able to carry out his work in Afghanistan, says the BBC's Lyse Doucet.
Some Afghan cabinet ministers had said they no longer wanted to work with him.
It is understood that Mr Galbraith would have been kept in his post until after a final ruling on the disputed presidential election - a process that is in its final stages - but leaks emerged in Kabul before Mr Galbraith himself had been informed of the secretary general's decision, said Ms Doucet.
A UN spokesman in Kabul told the BBC: "We are aware of the reports. An announcement of this nature would come from the UN secretary general's office in New York. At this stage there has been no announcement".
'Valuable deputy'
Last week, Mr Eide told the BBC the dispute had been resolved by Mr Galbraith agreeing to leave the country for a while.
He described Mr Galbraith as "a valuable deputy" and said he hoped they could "re-establish a good team and work together".
Mr Eide declined to talk about details of his disagreement with Mr Galbraith, but said the UN should respect the constitutional bodies in charge of the presidential election "to avoid any impression that there is foreign interference".
The row is between two men who have known each other for a long time but have very different styles, but a UN source said that had not been the only factor in Mr Galbraith's removal, Lyse Doucet says.
It is understood that Mr Ban would not have dismissed Mr Galbraith - who came to the post with US support - without backing from the Washington, she adds.
The US, along with other foreign missions in Afghanistan, appears to want to move on from the election dispute to deal with the country's other considerable problems, she says, but this will anger observers who believe a more robust response is needed to the allegations.
EU election observers have said that about 1.5m votes - about a quarter of all ballots - cast in August's presidential vote could be fraudulent.
They say that 1.1 million votes cast for President Karzai are suspicious.
Back to Top
Back to Top
UN: "Decision time" for Afghanistan
By Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press Writer – Tue Sep 29, 3:42 pm ET
UNITED NATIONS – A top U.N. envoy warned Tuesday that Afghanistan was facing "decision-time," including certification of results of the flawed presidential elections and its decision on whether to pursue a peace process with the rebels to try to end the country's eight-year-old war.
Kai Eide, the world body's special representative in Afghanistan, also cautioned against relying on "simplistic" plans to split the Taliban insurgency by buying off rank-and-file fighters.
"This is decision-time in Afghanistan and for Afghanistan," Eide told the U.N. Security Council. "A number of critical decisions will be made over the next weeks (that) will determine the prospects for success in ending a conflict that has become more intense in the last months."
These included endorsement of the results of the Aug. 20 presidential election. Preliminary results show President Hamid Karzai won a majority, but proclamation of a winner has been delayed pending a partial recount following allegations of widespread fraud. The ballot is seen as a critical test for the international effort to foster democracy.
"Then, the future president will have to decide on the composition of his new government and its agenda," Eide said. "Among the decisions ... is how a process of peace and reconciliation can be launched."
The Security Council session came amid reports that the chief allied commander in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has asked President Barack Obama for up to 40,000 more troops to fight the Taliban-led insurgency and help rebuild the country.
Also on Tuesday, NATO's Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he is confident that U.S. and allied troops will remain in Afghanistan "as long as it takes."
After a meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House, Fogh Rasmussen said the call for more Western combat troops was not the most important issue in the war effort. "The first thing is not numbers," he said.
And in Sweden, the European Union's chief military officer Gen. Henri Bentegeat said on Tuesday that nations in the 27-member bloc lack the political will to send more troops to fight the stalemated war.
Many EU nations have soldiers fighting in the 68,000-strong NATO force in Afghanistan, but are reluctant to boost troop levels. As a bloc, the EU's involvement is limited to a 275-strong mission training the country's police and judiciary.
At a meeting of European defense ministers in Goteborg, Sweden, German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said there was no discussion within NATO about boosting troop levels so far and called for clearer goals on what the alliance hopes to accomplish in Afghanistan.
"We have to find common ground on where we are, and based on that we must undertake the efforts needed to reach that goal," Jung told reporters.
At the U.N. Security Council, Eide said that more troops were indeed needed, but that ultimately there would have to be a political solution to the war.
"There has to be some kind of peace process," he said. "That process has to include not only Taliban representatives on the ground, but also the Taliban superstructure."
Eide acknowledged that some rebel fighters are motivated merely by financial reasons while others cannot be reconciled with the authorities in Kabul. But he told the council that many rebels have joined the insurgency because they feel alienated from the weak, graft-ridden central government.
Several U.S. commanders and politicians such as British Foreign Secretary David Miliband have proposed reaching out to the more moderate elements within the insurgency. This would essentially emulate the success of U.S. forces in Iraq, who pacified the Sunni-led rebellion centered in Anbar province by integrating the insurgents into the security forces.
Eide warned that it must be left up to the Afghan government to formulate a program to talk with the Taliban.
"Some ... in the international community are talking about a reintegration process distinct from such a program," he said. "I would like to appeal for some caution."
Back to Top
Back to Top
White House Begins Afghan War Strategy Review
Obama administration unexpectedly decided to review its strategy in Afghanistan after a series of recent setbacks in the war, including fraud allegations following last month's presidential elections
The Wall Street Journal via FOXNews.com Wednesday, September 30, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The White House began its review of the Afghan war strategy in earnest Tuesday, with senior administration officials meeting via videoconference with the top commander in Kabul, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, at the start of what could be weeks of debate over whether to send thousands of reinforcements.
White House officials said President Barack Obama will join in the discussions Wednesday, when he is expected to meet with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, among other top officials.
The White House unexpectedly decided to review its strategy in Afghanistan after a series of recent setbacks in the war, including allegations of fraud following last month's presidential elections and surging violence throughout the country. It begins just days after Gen. McChrystal submitted his request for as many as 40,000 additional troops to the Pentagon.
Some in the administration, notably Biden, have argued for a smaller military footprint and a tighter focus on counterterrorism as the best way forward.
Advocates of such a shift point to the effective use of Predator drone strikes to kill Taliban leaders in Pakistan. Two additional Predators are expected to be shifted soon to the region to patrol the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, according to people familiar with the decision, a move that would bring the total drones in the theater to a number the military has wanted for years.
Obama gave voice to a possible shift in emphasis on Tuesday when he spoke of "dismantling, disrupting, destroying the Al Qaeda network" as the mission, without mentioning the Taliban. He also said the U.S. is working with the Afghans to bring security to the country.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Pressure increases on Obama over Afghanistan
From Ed Hornick
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama is under increasing pressure to decide whether the United States will commit more troops and resources to the conflict in Afghanistan.
On Tuesday, the head of NATO met with the president and endorsed Obama's plan to fine-tune the strategy for Afghanistan before deciding on whether to deploy more troops.
"I agree with President Obama in his approach: strategy first, then resources," Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said after meeting with Obama at the White House.
The meeting comes a day before Obama is scheduled to discuss Afghanistan strategy with his national security team.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs backed up Rasmussen's assessment.
"If the policy takes time to get right, then that's what the president intends to do," he said at the White House briefing Tuesday. "I think he owes that to the men and women in uniform that are there."
Gibbs said any decision will not be political, and that the president is "happy to hear the back and forth from both sides of this," but is going to take his time to "decide what is right for the American people."
But the controversy on what the president should do next comes as the top U.S. commander in the region, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, said the situation in Afghanistan is not getting better.
Compared to just two years ago, the number of American troops killed by roadside bombs is up 400 percent.
McChrystal is expected to send his request any day for more resources to combat the insurgency in Afghanistan, according to a senior U.S. defense official familiar with the situation.
Earlier this month, McChrystal warned that more troops are needed there within the next year, or the nearly 8-year-old war war "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post.
But Obama's advisers are split on whether to send more troops.
Vice President Joe Biden has advocated reducing U.S. troops and focusing on dismantling al Qaeda cells, The New York Times reported.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he has full confidence in McChrystal, but said the administration must get its strategy right before addressing the question of additional resources.
Adm. Michael Mullen Mullen, though, told Congress he believes the United States will likely need to deploy more troops to Afghanistan.
"A properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces," Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee at a September 15 hearing.
Despite the differences, a top lawmaker on Capitol Hill wants answers now.
"The president must soon explain to the American people his reasons either for accepting the McChrystal plan or taking a different course," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said.
"The failure to act decisively in response to Gen. McChrystal's strategy and his anticipated request for additional forces could serve to undermine some of the good decisions the president has made on national security."
He added that McChrystal should come to Washington to explain to Congress and to the American people how their strategy will work.
And judging by recent polls, the president and his top generals may need to do that sooner rather than later.
A USA Today/Gallup poll released last week showed that half of all Americans, or 50 percent surveyed, are against sending more troops to Afghanistan. The poll was taken September 22-23 and has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.
That figure is slightly less than a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll taken September 11-13, showing that 58 percent of those polled oppose the war in Afghanistan, while only 39 percent favor it. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
"Most of the recent erosion in support has come from within the GOP," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Republicans still favor the war [unlike Independents and Democrats], but their support has slipped eight points in just two weeks."
Experts, meanwhile, are optimistic Obama will make the right decision.
Fred Kagan, Director of the Critical Threats Project for the American Enterprise Institute, said he is "reasonably confident" that the number of troops being mentioned would "allow us to achieve success in the critical phase of retaking the initiative from the insurgency, and then beginning a counter-offensive to take back the other key areas that are threatened."
Kimberly Kagan, the president of the Institute for the Study of War, said the general rule of thumb when it comes to determining how many troops is necessary is "one counter-insurgent per ever 50 people."
"We actually need enough forces on the ground to secure the population, and that if we do so and if we apply those forces wisely, we really do have every opportunity to support the people, to help the government reach the people, and help the people reject the insurgents," she said.
But the other decision for the administration is likely to be on neighboring Pakistan.
Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, to Iraq, and to the United Nations, said it's important for the United States to focus on Taliban and al Qaeda safe havens in the region.
"That sanctuary still continues, and we cannot succeed easily without dealing sharply with the issue of the sanctuary," he told Christiane Amanpour, CNN's chief international correspondent and anchor of "Amanpour."
Khalilzad said it's important for Afghan forces to step up to the plate at a much faster pace than has been done so far.
"Afghanistan is the same size, population-wise, as Iraq -- bigger territory. But the number of Afghan security forces is less than 100,000 on the army and police. ... Iraq has 700,000-plus security forces," he said.
Back to Top
Back to Top
At least 22 Taliban killed in Afghanistan: ministry
Wed Sep 30, 7:01 am ET
KABUL (AFP) – More than 20 Taliban were killed in a massive operation in western Afghanistan, the interior ministry said Wednesday, as the United States considers sending more troops to battle a worsening insurgency.
Taliban activity has been intensifying in recent months as foreign troops and their Afghan counterparts concentrated efforts on insurgent hotspots such as southern Kandahar and Helmand provinces.
Insurgents have spilled over the provincial border from Helmand into western Farah, where the fierce battle took place on Tuesday night.
The interior ministry said in a statement that Afghan and international forces killed 22 Taliban militants during the operation by Afghan police and army, backed by coalition forces, which lasted almost four hours.
It said that 25 insurgents were wounded and another 12 arrested.
"Eight rocket launchers, 35 Kalashnikovs, one device for detonating remote-controlled bombs, hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition and some anti-vehicle mines were also discovered," the ministry statement said.
There were no police casualties, it said, adding that the operation in the Pusht Rod district began at 8.30 pm (1600 GMT) and lasted until midnight.
It gave no further details of the battle.
US President Barack Obama is weighing a request from his military top brass for an additional 30,000-40,000 troops as part of a change in strategy from killing insurgents to protecting civilians here and promoting development.
Obama has called his most formidable military, political and national security aides to the secure Situation Room of the White House, to brainstorm the way forward as he mulls sending thousands more US troops into battle.
The meeting scheduled for Wednesday will culminate in a fateful decision on whether to escalate the war.
The president is under intense pressure to reinvigorate US strategy, faced with a strengthening Taliban insurgency and souring US public opinion on the eight-year wa. But aides say he will not make a final decision for weeks.
The US and NATO have more than 100,000 troops based in Afghanistan to wipe out the Taliban threat, with the fiercest fighting in Helmand and Kandahar, which are seeing an escalation of deaths caused by remote-controlled bombs.
US Marines are battling to clear heavily mined areas, such as the Bhuji Bhast Pass which is essentially a Taliban corridor 36 kilometres (22 miles long) and the only route between Golestan village and Delaram city.
Villages in the area are also regarded as hostile to the foreign fighters, who are battling to adopt the new strategy being promoted by the senior commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, US General Stanley McChrystal.
At the heart of the new approach is winning the confidence of ordinary people away from supporting the Taliban.
McChrystal, who warned in a leaked report that the conflict could be lost within a year without more troops, was due to to take part in the Wednesday debate, either in person or by video link-up, the White House said.
Other top military brass included were General David Petraeus who heads US central command, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Blair.
Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were the top ranking civilian officials expected for a bracing session on a war some supporters fear could swamp Obama's presidency.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Pay cut prompting many Afghan soldiers to quit
The Canadian Press Wednesday Sep. 30, 2009 7:23 AM ET
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — At a time when every experienced Afghan soldier on the ground in Kandahar is worth his weight in gold -- many are leaving over something as simple as a pay dispute.
There are about 2,600 Afghan soldiers augmenting Canadian forces in Kandahar province -- braving daily skirmishes with the Taliban and leaving family and friends behind in the north.
But Colonel Gregory Burt, the commander of the Operational Mentor Liaison Team, said the Afghan government recently eliminated the danger and isolation pay Afghan soldiers have been receiving in Kandahar province.
He said now a soldier in Kabul who stands guard at a gate makes the same money as a soldier in Kandahar getting shot at every day.
Burt is concerned that many Afghan soldiers will not sign up again to fight in the south when their three-year contracts are up.
He said in some instances they are leaving Kandahar, going AWOL or signing up to serve with the army in northern Afghanistan.
Back to Top
Back to Top
MoD: Efforts under way to secure N Afghanistan
KABUL, Sept. 30 (Xinhua) -- The anti-government militants have been tried to expand their activities in relatively peaceful north provinces, but efforts are under way to overcome these problems, said spokesman of Defense Ministry on Wednesday.
"Defense ministry and international community are concerned about insecurity in north but it is not a big concern, all sources would be used to overcome these challenges," Gen. Zahir Azimi told a joint press conference with spokesman of ISAF (NATO-led International Security Assistance Force).
Enemies of Afghanistan have no moral to fight our forces so they are trying to influence in northern peaceful provinces by conducting suicide and suicide bombings, Azimi added.
"Measure efforts have been taken to bring stability in north and Chief of Joint Staff Gen. Basmillah left to Kunduz today to assess the situation there," the spokesman said.
Kunduz and Baghlan, relatively peaceful provinces in north, has been the scene of growing Taliban-linked insurgency over the past several months.
"ISAF is working in partnership with the Afghan national security forces to ensure the area in Baghlan and Kunduz to improve security over the next few months," said Gen. Eric G. Tremblay spokesman of ISAF.
Conflicts and violence have claimed over 1,500 civilians and 380 international troops so far this year in war-torn Afghanistan.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Report: Next weeks crucial for Afghanistan
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 29 (UPI) -- The coming weeks will be crucial for Afghanistan, the United Nations' top envoy to the country told the U.N. Security Council Tuesday.
Kai Eide, the secretary-general's special representative and head of the U.N. assistance mission in Afghanistan, said decisions made about Afghanistan during the next few weeks include the outcome of the Aug. 20 presidential election, the United Nations said in a news release.
"This is decision time in Afghanistan and for Afghanistan," Eide told the U.S. Security Council when presenting the report. "A number of critical decisions will be made over the next weeks. Together, they will determine the prospects for success in ending a conflict that has become more intense over the last months."
Eide said the final result of the presidential elections would be determined soon and then certified.
"When the final outcome has been determined, it must be respected -- by candidates and their supporters," he said. "What most Afghans ... now want is to see the election process end, a government formed and their lives improved."
After the election outcome is certified, the president must decide the composition of the new government and its agenda, such as how a process of peace and reconciliation can be launched, the future size and composition of the international and Afghan security forces, and priorities and allocation of international development assistance, Eide said.
Maintaining the status quo "simply is not an option anymore," Eide said. "We must change our mindset."
Afghan President Hamid Karzai won 54 percent of the vote in the August election, but the results won't be certified until allegations of fraud have been investigated, CNN said. More than 200,000 of the nearly 5.7 million ballots cast have been rejected and European Union observers have raised questions about 1.5 million more.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan's drug czar - world's toughest job
By Phil Zabriskie, contributor Fortune via Yahoo! FinanceOn Wednesday September 30, 2009, 9:13 am EDT
With the sun shining brightly, a host of Afghan officials, foreign diplomats, and members of the press take their seats beneath a newly erected red tent. After a prayer and some introductory remarks, a general steps to the podium and gives the customary Islamic invocation in the name of almighty Allah, most gracious and merciful.
He welcomes the attendees to this barren hillside north of Kabul and, as befits his office as Afghanistan's minister of counternarcotics, decries illegal drugs as "pure poison that destroys life, not only in Afghanistan but around the world," labels the drug trade "a feeding tube to terrorism," and resolves "to target this devilish phenomenon from every angle."
When he finishes, Col. Gen. Khodaidad (pronounced koh-DAD-dod; like many Afghans, he uses one name) walks a short distance uphill, takes hold of a wooden rod tipped with kerosene-soaked rags, waits as it is lit, then dips it into a shallow trench filled with gasoline. The flame skips along the ground toward a mound of recently seized raw opium, processed heroin, and mixing chemicals -- 6½ tons in all. In an instant the pile is engulfed by fire. A moment later it explodes.
It should be a moment of triumph for the general, or at least cause for quiet celebration. The spectacle was designed to illustrate that, despite the breakneck growth of the Afghan drug trade these past eight years, despite reports implicating officials throughout the government in the $4-billion-a-year industry, and despite Afghanistan's descent into what could plausibly be called narco-statehood, President Hamid Karzai's administration is trying to do something about its drug problem. On this day the general was a willing emissary for that message.
But afterward, as he is driven back into town in a black SUV with tinted windows, he seems restless, frustrated, perhaps a little defeated, as if he knows the morning's events were a set piece of political theater. As Kabul comes into view he points to a string of car dealerships and, with resignation, says that they are owned by traffickers. Passing a row of large, ornate homes -- commonly called "poppy palaces" or "narcotecture" -- he says drug money built them all. Then he sighs deeply, rubs his hands together, and stares through the darkened glass.
His weariness, to a great extent, stems from the fact that Gen. Khodaidad has one of the toughest jobs in the world. He has been assigned to coordinate Afghanistan's counternarcotics policy, eradicating as many poppy fields as possible, and act as the Afghan face of antidrug efforts in the country.
It's one thing to serve a functional system with clear goals and principles. It's quite another to have his job in this place at this time, when he can't be sure whether his boss wants him to succeed and when any quick hit of satisfaction brought on by burning tons of drugs cannot even last the drive home.
What really worries him -- what should worry us all -- is that if his country continues to be the source of 93% of the world's heroin, America's nation-building and counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan will almost certainly fail.
Each year as much as $400 million ends up in the pockets of the Taliban and the warlords who support them. The U.S.-led coalition knows it too. The coalition has never been as focused on counternarcotics as it is now.
And President Obama's administration has shifted priorities, jettisoned ineffective programs, and devoted more money, manpower, and military might to combating the trafficking infrastructure. But will that be enough?
A czar without power
If Gen. Khodaidad's current plight is any indicator, the answer is most likely no. As counternarcotics minister, he has earned one of the cleanest reputations in the Afghan civil service. Yet in the face of government corruption and bigtime traffickers and their allies in the Taliban insurgency, he is essentially powerless -- and it shows.
A compact, sturdy man with close-cropped hair, a thick mustache, and dark eyes locked in a squint behind wire-rimmed glasses, he seems perpetually coiled, as if he's internalized the tension that exists between his ambitions and the reality of his situation.
On most days Khodaidad wears slacks and a blazer, not the shalwar kameez worn by most Afghans. Each morning he rides to work with a bodyguard, but not in the high-speed, heavily armed convoys in which most ranking officials travel.
There is security at the ministry's front gate, but nothing like the blast walls and layers of guards at other government offices. (An American review of the ministry's security found "umpteen million things that needed to be fixed," says one State Department official.)
The headquarters itself is a ramshackle building a fraction of the size of the higher-profile ministry complexes and painted an odd shade of pink. His office is a long, rectangular room with a wide, sturdy desk near the back wall, beneath a portrait of Hamid Karzai.
On the wall are posters showing the trafficking routes out of the country, the provinces that have been declared poppy-free, and the districts that are most and least secure -- graphic representations of the work that needs to be done.
It's a staggering task, but Khodaidad believes he is the man for the job. "I know the people of Afghanistan," he says. "I know the forces of Afghanistan. It is very easy for me to deploy these forces against drug dealers and poppy growers."
His bluster has some justification, because few living Afghans can match his record of battlefield exploits. And yet in a country with pronounced ethnic divides and still-fresh memories of the mujahadeen's battle against the Soviets, his background is more handicap than asset.
He hails from Sharistan, an isolated central highlands district populated by Hazaras, a Shia Muslim minority in a largely Sunni country and the country's most downtrodden ethnic group.
Following a course set when his father, a farmer, sent him to a military school in Kabul at 11, he served in the Afghan national army that fought with the Soviets after they invaded in 1979. He was a corps commander, pitted against the mujahadeen throughout the country. At one point he fought to a stalemate the legendary strategist Ahmed Shah Masood, in Masood's own Panjshir Valley.
After the Soviets withdrew, as the Taliban swept across the country, unleashing particular savagery on Hazaras, whom they labeled apostates, Khodaidad took his wife and three daughters to London. His family remains in England, but he returned after the Taliban was overthrown to serve under Karzai.
The Ministry of Counternarcotics was born in 2004, when Karzai responded to British and American pressure by creating an office for drug policy, led by a figure akin to America's drug czar. Khodaidad was its first deputy minister, and then, in 2007, Karzai named him minister. And there's no indication that the recent election will affect his job as drug czar.
Khodaidad's résumé means little in the arena of modern-day Afghan power politics. He has no tribe backing him, no gunmen protecting him, no mujahadeen lending him credibility. And crucially, he has no sway with other ethnic groups, particularly the Pashtuns in the south and southeast, where the majority of poppies are planted. And all this is fine as far as the general is concerned, because he values his independence.
Yet Thomas Schweich, a former senior State Department counternarcotics official in Afghanistan who speaks highly of Khodaidad as an individual, believes his appointment was a sign that Afghanistan's leadership is not looking to solve anything. Says he: "I think Karzai appointed him because he wouldn't have any influence in that part of the country, and I think Karzai felt that Americans were too stupid to figure that out."
To date, the general can point to a few apparent successes, such as the rise in poppy-free provinces -- defined as those with fewer than 250 acres planted -- from three in 2005 to 20 last year, or the recent 22% drop in cultivation.
Yet when asked if he thinks any members of the government have impeded counternarcotics efforts, the general says, "Many times, yes. There are some governors who are obstacles. When we are doing this dangerous job, there are smugglers, there are corrupt officials, there are bad people standing in front of you and making some sabotage, making propaganda." And sometimes, he adds, making threats against his life. "Plenty of obstacles," he says with a smile. "Every day."
Why poppies pay
One of the biggest obstacles is that poppies act as an alternate currency. Mujahadeen leaders, some of whom serve in the current government, partially funded their fight against the Soviets, and later one another, with opium, writes Gretchen Peters in her book "Seeds of Terror," and the Taliban used it to finance their rise and rule.
Yet after the Taliban was toppled, Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon focused mainly on counterterrorism. Drugs were a police matter, he believed, though there was no functioning police force.
Sensing an opportunity, Afghans of all stripes lined up to cash in: farmers hoping to make money; landowners seeking higher returns; local, district, and provincial officials -- police chiefs, governors, and militia leaders (i.e., warlords) -- who'd smuggled before and saw a chance to do so again.
"These guys started to look around and say, 'Holy shit, no one is doing anything about this,'" says Alex Thier, a rule-of-law expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace who has worked in Afghanistan since the mid-1990s. They figured, he says, "there's no risk in doing it. It's not only that I'm able to bribe the governor. The governor owns the fields that I'm planting!"
By 2007 more than 3 million Afghans were involved in cultivating a yield of some 8,200 metric tons of poppies, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Farmers were earning roughly six times the nation's per capita income of $340 a year. In 2007 opium's value was nearly 10 times that of wheat, making it extremely difficult to persuade farmers to switch crops.
American policy now stresses alternative livelihood programs designed to help farmers grow crops -- grapes, pomegranates, and almonds, for instance -- that can bring in as much as poppies do. However, the seeds literally take time to grow, so farmers living hand-to-mouth need some kind of bridge, which the West is trying to provide in the form of training and fertilizer and seedling subsidies.
So poppies remain the best thing going. "Of course we know it's illegal, but we have no other option," Hamid Hakmal, a teacher in Nokher Khil, a village in Nangarhar province, says. "I can't earn enough to live with wheat. If the government or NGOs would help us, we wouldn't have to plant this."
Given these harsh realities, poppy cultivation "is a logical economic response to conditions of chaos," says Ronald Neumann, the American ambassador to Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007.
Indeed, higher up the chain, huge payoffs await those who can get the drugs to multinational criminal mafias that move them to Karachi, Istanbul, Dubai, Moscow, or Beijing, and onward. A UNODC official says the value of the drugs multiplies by a factor of 10 every time they cross a border. And, Khodaidad lamented, "the border of Afghanistan is wide open."
Cash flows through the hawala network, the honor-bound, Western Union-like system used in the Middle East and South Asia to move money. Traffickers also use "trade-based money laundering," says John Cassara, a former Treasury Department investigator.
They exchange drugs for commodities -- cement, luxury cars, TV sets, weapons, and more -- imported with doctored or nonexistent invoices, which are then sold for cash, later reinvested in Dubai's property market or poppy palaces or shopping centers or even banks in Afghan cities. "There's a level of sophistication out here that would probably surprise people," says Jay Fitzpatrick, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent stationed in Kabul. "It's a tough system to crack."
Distressingly, several past and present cabinet ministers, senior law enforcement officials, and even Karzai's own brother are widely suspected of profiting handsomely from the poppy trade, overseeing growing operations or enabling transport of the yield across and out of the country.
They deny the charges, but it's impossible not to believe, as does David Kilcullen, an Australian counterinsurgency scholar and former adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, that "we shouldn't underestimate the degree to which corrupt Afghan officials are involved in the drug trade." Current and former government officials, including Khodaidad, speak of investigations thwarted, inquiries shut down, suspects summarily released after a hurried phone call.
Such was the state of affairs, says a State Department official, that an Afghan radio program that announced a seizure of 100 kilos of opium got a call from the trafficker himself moments later. He insisted he'd had twice that amount, accused the police of stealing the rest, and demanded it back.
Targeting the traffickers
After years of trying, it has become increasingly clear that eradication isn't working. Initially, and for too long, the drug issue and the insurgency were compartmentalized. The military focused on counterterrorism, while drug policy focused on the source. When and where possible, fields were bulldozed or sprayed or threshed by policemen and contractors.
But the work was dangerous -- many were killed -- and the results were inconsistent. Local officials involved in trafficking would point out fields belonging to rivals while shielding those of allies. The eradication that did happen hurt farmers with mouths to feed and loans to repay, resulting in wrenching stories of fathers giving away daughters to settle debts, and communities looking elsewhere for protection.
Antonia Maria Costa, who heads the UNODC, called it "a sad joke." At a conference last summer in Rome, Richard Holbrooke, Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, essentially agreed. "The Western policies against the opium crop, the poppy crop, have been a failure," he said. "They did not result in any damage to the Taliban, but they put farmers out of work and they alienated people and drove people into the arms of the Taliban." Later, he added, "the U.S. has wasted hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on this program, and that is going to end."
From the military's point of view, "Counternarcotics was just a sideshow," says Maj. Gen. Michael Tucker, who until recently served as deputy commander of operations for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. "It's center stage now."
The crucial realization, says Kilcullen, was that you can't fight the Taliban without fighting drugs, that "counterinsurgency is counternarcotics, and vice versa." In the south the Taliban taxes growers, takes cuts from labs, and charges fees for protecting drug convoys. Some Taliban commanders are traffickers themselves. "They portray themselves as warriors of Islam," says Peters, "but the way they act reminds me a lot more of Tony Soprano."
Traffickers who do business with the Taliban are now considered military targets. The DEA has increased the number of its agents in the country from 13 to 81. It is training elite units of Afghan drug police and is working more closely with the U.S. military, which now has a counternarcotics desk in its operations center.
Tucker says the military conducts a counternarcotics operation roughly every three days. The proliferation of labs helps, ironically, because processing requires cooking the opium for 12 to 16 hours, which exposes the operation to satellite imaging.
In all of 2008, he said, 14,000 kilograms of opium were seized; by May of this year the military had already seized 18,000 kilos -- a sizable increase, though still a tiny percentage of the overall crop. The Americans, however, remain circumspect. "This is not a one- to two-year fight," says an American embassy official in Kabul. "I think it's unrealistic to expect swift progress."
Time is short, however, because in many ways the war against drugs is a race to hold on to the best of the country. Stu Jones, a Treasury Department official in Kabul, says $500 million in cash was hand-carried out of the country last year (and that's only what was declared).
Military officials estimate that three years' worth of opium is already stockpiled across the country and that the hashish trade is growing as fast as opium once did, often in so-called poppy-free provinces.
On the human side, the cost of drugs is perhaps most evident at a hellish scene that unfolds daily at the former Russian Cultural Center in Kabul, a dilapidated structure haunted by the city's addicts. In room after smoky, fetid room, once able-bodied men -- the youngest around 14, the eldest maybe 75 -- huddle over their 50 hits of heroin. It seems that hope itself has died, that these half-living souls represent the consequences of the life sucked out of this country by corruption, greed, and apathy.
Despite all this, Khodaidad refuses to give in. On another bright morning he stands beneath a large tree in the village of Shaka Zara, about an hour's drive from Kabul, facing a group of local men as armed soldiers stand sentry. He is talking about a project funded by his ministry that is widening the roads in the village to make it easier for people to get their crops to nearby markets. It's happening, he says, because they stopped growing poppies. Khodaidad finishes, then accepts the thanks of the crowd.
Even though failure is never far away and there are no guarantees anything he does will be rewarded, the general drives on. But if he can't get where he's going, it's hard to imagine America's project in Afghanistan will get where it's supposed to go.
Phil Zabriskie, a writer living in New York City, has been covering Afghanistan since 2002.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Obama: Don't give up on Afghanistan
He should approve the additional troops General McChrystal wants.
By John Hughes Christian Science Monitor from the September 30, 2009 edition
Provo, Utah - During the presidential election campaign, Barack Obama maintained that Iraq was the wrong war for the US and Afghanistan was the right one.
Now he seems to be having second thoughts. But in one of the most stark warnings a field commander has ever delivered to his president, Gen. Stanley McChrystal has declared that, without a rapid infusion of more troops, the war will "likely result in failure." He is surely frustrated with White House ponderings about whether the US has the "right strategy" in Afghanistan.
Well, the strategy is pretty clear. It is to make Afghans secure enough to reject the Taliban and their Al Qaeda mentors.
As Margaret Thatcher once said to another American president, in another war, this is no time to "go wobbly." President Obama should approve the dispatch of additional troops to Afghanistan that McChrystal is requesting.
Nobody can take lightly the decision to send more young US soldiers into combat. Nobody can guarantee that the outcome will be positive. The terrain in Afghanistan is forbidding. Hamid Karzai's reelected government lacks credibility.
But as expert Stephen Biddle testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month: "Few Afghans want to return to the medieval [Taliban] theocracy they endured before. Most Afghans want education for their daughters, they want access to media and ideas from abroad, they want freedom from thugs enforcing fundamentalism for all."
Though the challenges in Afghanistan might seem daunting, there are some positive factors.
The consensus seems to be that the Al Qaeda leadership hunkered down in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region is accompanied by 150 to 500 hard-core fighters. The US and allies have been successful in recent weeks in taking out senior Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Somalia, and Indonesia.
In the late 1980s, as many as 150,000 Afghans fought against the Soviets. Today, the number of Taliban fighters is between 20,000 and 40,000, of whom about one fourth are full-time combatants, according to Dr. Biddle.
The strategy for US forces is to eliminate Al Qaeda terrorists. The Taliban is far from a unified opposition group. It is a divided coalition of often fractious and independent units, whose loyalties can change overnight due to money, jealousy, or imagined slights. During the first US movement into Afghanistan after 9/11, many were successfully co-opted by CIA agents and special operations personnel.
Meanwhile the US military, conditioned to wage large-scale warfare against set forces, has undergone major rethinking since 9/11 about its ability to conduct counterinsurgency operations. US forces today are said to be vastly superior to the Soviet Army that attempted, and failed, to subdue Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Although Afghanistan itself concerns US security, the prospect of events there destabilizing neighboring Pakistan is a nightmare. Theoretically an ally of America, Pakistan is suspicious and often mistrustful of Washington. It believes the US has been hot and cold on the relationship, depending on American needs and ambitions at given times. It worries about US ties with India, with which the Pakistanis have oft been embattled.
Moreover, although the Pakistan Army has recently stepped up its campaign against extremists, the influential Pakistani intelligence service has long maintained political and operational ties with the Taliban and tribes living in, and moving across, the ill-defined "Af-Pak" border.
A Taliban takeover of Afghanistan would provide a major haven for Taliban and Al Qaeda to attempt destabilization of Pakistan. Pakistan's own political situation has see-sawed over the years between fragile democracy and authoritarian rule. Pakistan also has nuclear weapons.
We know that Al Qaeda has had an interest in acquiring a nuclear bomb. Transfer of such a weapon to a terrorist organization with the intent of exploding it in Israel or the US is something the US cannot permit.
Afghanistan may be the right war for Obama after all.
John Hughes, a former editor of the Monitor, writes a biweekly column for the Monitor's weekly edition.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Mullah Omar not in Pakistan, Taliban commander says
Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:42am EDT By Saeed Ali Achakzai
CHAMAN, Pakistan, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar is not in Pakistan and the United States is only saying he is there to justify an expansion of its drone missile strikes, a Taliban commander said on Wednesday.
The Washington Post said this week U.S. officials had expressed concern over the ability of Omar and his lieutenants to launch attacks into Afghanistan from sanctuaries around the Pakistani city of Quetta.
Pakistan has long denied that Omar or any of his commanders are based in Pakistan but it has been unable to dispel the suspicion in Washington and Kabul. Several Taliban members have been detained in Pakistan.
Mounting U.S. concern about Omar and his so-called Quetta shura, or leadership council, comes as the United States weighs options on how to deal with an intensifying Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.
Possibilities include sending more combat troops and trainers for the Afghan army and stepping up strikes by pilotless drone aircraft on militants on the Pakistani side of the border.
A Taliban commander, Hayatullah Khan, told Reuters by telephone that the entire Taliban leadership was in Afghanistan.
"Pakistan is not safe for us. More of our people have been captured in Pakistan than in Afghanistan so everybody is here including Mullah Omar," said Khan, who said he was speaking from Afghanistan, although he declined to be specific.
"The Americans are making the Quetta shura an excuse for an expansion of their drone strikes to Baluchistan, nothing else," said Khan, referring to the southwestern province of which Quetta is capital, which borders southern Afghanistan.
Pakistan, battling al Qaeda-linked Pakistani Taliban militants in ethnic Pashtun lands to the north of Baluchistan, says the Quetta shura does not exist. ([ID:nLR130511])
But many analysts say Pakistan is acting only against militants which are a threat to itself, like the Pakistani Taliban, while leaving alone those focused on fighting in Afghanistan or on targeting India.
U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson told the Washington Post the Quetta shura was "high on Washington's list".
The United States intensified its attacks by pilotless drones on militants in northwestern Pakistani border sanctuaries last year as the Afghan insurgency intensified. ([ID:nSP456597])
The United States has launched nearly 60 strikes in northwest Pakistan since the beginning of 2008, but none has been in Baluchistan.
The strikes are deeply unpopular in a country where many people are suspicious of U.S. designs in the region.
Pakistan officially objects to the drone attacks, saying they violate its sovereignty and the civilian casualties they inflict inflame public anger.
U.S. officials say the strikes are carried out under an agreement with Islamabad that allows Pakistani leaders to decry the attacks in public.
Pakistan is already facing a low-level insurgency by separatists in impoverished but gas-rich Baluchistan and has decried any suggestion of an expansion of the U.S. drone war to the province.
The U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, said in an assessment leaked to the media last week the Afghan insurgency was clearly supported from Pakistan and senior leaders of insurgent groups were based there.
Analysts say Pakistan is worried about the growing influence of old rival India in Afghanistan and some Pakistani security officials see the Taliban as a tool to counter that influence. (For more Reuters coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, see:here an) (Writing by Kamran Haider; Editing by Robert Birsel)
Back to Top
Back to Top
What we must promise Afghanistan
National Post Terry Glavin Wednesday, September 30, 2009
It is heartening to see that the consensus of silence that has united Canada's political leaders on the Afghanistan question is at long last receiving some public notice. The sound of crickets is pretty well all we've been hearing ever since the January 2008 release of John Manley's sobering, no-nonsense report about Canada's purposes in that faraway country.
The report should have provided the basis for a proper public debate about what Canada's role might be at the 2011 end-date of the 52-nation Afghanistan Compact. Instead, the Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats have used the opportunity as an excuse to keep schtum about the whole thing.
It's at least partly because politicians are always loathe to disturb fashionable opinion, which in Canada is weirdly seized of the idea the Afghanistan Compact -- which unites us with such notoriously imperialist powers as Turkmenistan, Bahrain, Brunei and Jordan-- was somehow a plot to "impose Western values" upon the hapless Afghan people all along.
You can understand the silence of the New Democrats. Any serious scrutiny would reveal the NDP's "troops out" posture as an abject abdication to the senility of the American counterculture. It's one part pacifism of the objectively pro-fascist kind, one part bigotry about the mythically incorrigible, democracy-hating Afghan people and several parts conspiracy theory of the "it's all about oil" variety. So, fair play to the New Democrats. Best be quiet about it.
The Liberal silence is attributable to a more pedestrian sort of cunning. It's all about what the polls say. Besides, Afghanistan is risky. Some cheeky journalist might linger on the subject long enough to ask who the imposter is and how long the Liberal party intends to keep the cruise-missile intellectual formerly known as Michael Ignatieff hidden away in that secret Ottawa dungeon, bound and gagged and chained to a wall.
Prime Minister Harper, meanwhile, is routinely and properly rebuked for his stunning failure to "sell" the mission. But the criticism tends to rest on the dubious assumptions that it would make any difference in the press no matter how hard he tried and that he fervently believes in the "mission," which he inherited from the Liberals, in the first place.
One of Harper's problems is that he is also obliged to speak as the Prime Minister of a big, rich country that shouldn't be troubled by such an embarrassing question as whether its soldiers should even be in Afghanistan. After all, the United Nations wants us there. There are soldiers from such countries as Lithuania, Albania, Luxembourg and Estonia in Afghanistan. It would be a bit shy-making for a Canadian prime minister to have to say, sorry, but we're just squeamish about playing in your league, so we'll just cuddle in our blankies up here in the bleachers if it's all the same to you.
But Harper's main problem in "selling" the Afghan mission is that it would require him to speak a language with which conservatives of his tendencies are unfamiliar. Foreign-policy neoconservatives are competently conversant in a dialect of it, but it hasn't been exactly a habit of Canadian Tories to articulate the righteousness of national sacrifice in the cause of Third World liberation struggles, and the emancipation of faraway peoples from the grip of violent misogyny and religious tyranny. They just don't speak the language.
But this was the language that John Manley spoke forcefully and clearly when he released his report back in January 2008, and his challenge to Canada's politicians could not be intelligently addressed in any other idiom. Thus, crickets.
The problem isn't the resolve of the Afghan people. For Afghans, the big fear isn't the spectre of Taliban militias rolling across the landscape and recapturing Kabul. It's the stink of a looming betrayal that emanates from the language of defeatism abroad in rich countries like Canada. It paralyzes the bravest Afghans --if it's all coming to an end, there's no point in sticking one's neck out. It also fuels the "corruption" that plagues the country -- if this isn't going to last, then you might as well get it while the getting's good.
The language we speak is at least as important to the Afghan cause as bread or roses, or guns or butter. More than all else, what the Afghan people need to hear from us is plain words spoken in clear language:We will not betray you. We will not abandon you. We will not surrender. We will not retreat.
Until Canada's politicians can find it in themselves to speak that kind of language, perhaps they should do us all a favour and just keep their mouths shut. - Terry Glavin is an author, journalist and adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan opens new offices of UN Mission, Consulate General in New York
Xinhua www.chinaview.cn 2009-09-30
NEW YORK - Afghanistan on Tuesday opened the new office of the Afghan Permanent Mission to the United Nations and the Afghan Consulate General in New York.
Rangin Dadfar Spanta, the Afghan foreign minister, said at the opening ceremony that "the United Nations is one of the top priorities on our list" of the Afghan foreign policy.
The foreign minister is in New York to attend the annual debate of the General Assembly, which concluded here Tuesday.
"Since the collapse of the Taliban regime, Afghanistan has started a transforming journey," the minister said, adding that the Afghan Foreign Ministry works as a bridge between his country and the outside world.
"This is one of the proudest moments of my professional life, and an important moment for Afghanistan," the Afghan UN Ambassador, Zahir Tanin, said at the opening ceremony.
"From the first day of my tenure as the (Afghan) ambassador, I have been committed to providing my country with the best representation possible," Tanin told a group of guests, including UN under-Secretary-General Kiyotaka Akasaka.
The Chinese permanent representative to the UN, Zhang Yesui, and his counterparts from Japan and South Korea were also present at the ceremony to open the new offices, which is located between 40th and 41st streets on the Third Avenue in Manhattan, central New York City.
"Afghan people, like other peoples all around the world, desire dignity and honor," he said. "Unfortunately, Afghanistan's international representation has often suffered from minimized of the times non-existed support of facility."
Afghanistan is among the founding members of the United Nations, he said, adding that the opening of the new office lifted his country's representation in New York City, the site of the UN Headquarters, and the United Nations remains a top priority in the Afghan foreign policy.
Time has seen Afghanistan repeatedly involved in wars and tragedy, he said. "Afghanistan has rarely had the opportunity to enjoy the privileges enjoyed by some of our neighbors and other members of the United Nations."
With the opening of the new office, Afghanistan can raise its colors with the flags of other UN member states on the roof of New York, the ambassador said. "This is so symbolically raising the hope of Afghan legacy and children."
The opening signals a separation from the sad past of Afghanistan and brings about new hopes of the future, he added.
Addressing the annual debate of the General Assembly on Tuesday morning, the Afghan foreign minister said, "Unfortunately, the negative coverage of the situation in Afghanistan by international media has overshadowed the many positive trends and developments achieved since the collapse of the Taliban's regime."
"Alongside terrorism, drugs, weak state institutions and corruption, a new Afghanistan is emerging," he said. "This Afghanistan comprises our emerging democracy, rising state institutions, nascent civil society, growing private sector and strong international solidarity."
"I can refer to many examples about this Afghanistan," he said. "In the course of last eight years, the percentage of access to basic health services has risen from nine percent in 2001 to present 85 percent."
The number of students had grown from one million only boy students in 2001 to nearly 7 million boys and girls in 2008, he said. In 2001, there were only 4,000 students in universities, whereas now more than 75,000 are enrolled in 22 universities.
"The armies of private militia in late 2001 have been replaced by a nearly 200,000 strong national security forces," he said. "Compared with one state Radio and a couple of newspapers during the Taliban, Afghanistan now has over 700 media outlets, who are often critical of the government."
Back to Top
Back to Top
What's next for Canada in Afghanistan?
Globe and Mail J. L. Granatstein Wednesday, Sep. 30, 2009
The Afghan war is not going well.
Canadian and allied casualties mount daily, improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers proliferate, and the Taliban seem to be extending their reach across the country from south to north and east to west. The Afghanistan-Pakistan border continues to be open to reinforcements and weapons for the Taliban, and the hunt for al-Qaeda's top figures remains frustratingly slow, despite some successes.
The recent Afghan presidential election is still unresolved, with the allegations of fraud now being proved. President Hamid Karzai looks to be the winner, but his government is, at best, likely to remain ineffective and corrupt.
The war's unpopularity is clear in the opinion polls, each death in the field continues to get extensive coverage and ministers and the senior leaders of the Canadian Forces have clearly been told to say as little as possible about any matters of significance.
That is not wholly true. The Canadian government has repeatedly stated that it will live up to the terms of the February, 2008, House of Commons motion declaring that Canada will begin to pull its combat troops out of Kandahar in July, 2011, and complete that process by the end of the year.
There have been grumbles about this from officials of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, fearful that others allies, less stalwart than Canada in fighting the war, might follow Ottawa's lead. U.S. President Barack Obama has appeared understanding of Canada's decision, not least during Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recent visit to Washington, but American pressure on Canada to change its position will surely increase if a Canadian withdrawal seems likely to spur other allies to pull out as well.
At the same time, the federal government has made it clear that Canada will not quit Afghanistan completely. In Washington on Sept. 16, the Prime Minister said that “Canada is not leaving Afghanistan; Canada will be transitioning from a predominantly military mission to a mission that will be a civilian humanitarian development mission after 2011.”
The fighting soldiers will come home, but Canada has more than infantry and tanks in Afghanistan. There is a helicopter squadron, which is of great usefulness, and the 300-strong Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar, helping to improve the local infrastructure and train Afghans. There are diplomats and aid personnel. And there are officers and soldiers in the Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams working directly within the kandaks (battalions) of the Afghan National Army while others, mainly RCMP and other police, give advice to the Afghan National Police.
What, if anything, of these resources will remain after 2011 when the battle group returns to Canada? What do we want to do? What goals do we hope to achieve? How can the government build a consensus in Parliament and the country for its future course, whatever it might be?
Mr. Harper created the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan in the late summer of 2007, giving the task of leading it to former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley. After wide but quick consultations, the Manley commission delivered in January, 2008, its sensible recommendations, which formed the basis of the government's motion in the Commons in February.
In a shrewd gesture of bipartisanship, the government largely accepted the Liberal Opposition's amendments to its motion, and the result was Parliament's decision to extend the mission to 2011.
Now the clock is ticking toward the inevitable Canadian withdrawal. Can we not replicate the Manley commission to help us prepare the plan for the post-2011 years? This could not happen if the country had been plunged into a general election this fall, but, with some luck, we may avoid this until after the Vancouver Olympics.
A commission set up now could hear witnesses, including Canadian diplomats and aid officials, senior officers from the Canadian Forces, academics, representatives of non-governmental organizations and others. It could talk to foreign diplomats and politicians and visit Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Such a commission could consider the key questions:
What are Canada's national interests in Afghanistan eight years after the 9/11 attacks? What do we want to achieve there?
We all probably recognize that Kabul is not going to be the capital of a Western-style democracy, but can we realistically help to create a better life for a people who clearly want their daughters to be able to go school? Can we help to build an Islamic republic that is a just society?
What are the possibilities of Pakistan's sliding further into chaos, of its nuclear weapons falling into the hands of fundamentalist terrorists? And what are the implications of this for the Afghan war and for future devastating attacks on the West?
How best can Canada continue to play a useful role in Afghanistan and the region? Do we want to keep our trainers and mentors in the field, knowing that this will mean Canadian soldiers will be fighting alongside Afghans? Do we want to keep the Provincial Reconstruction Team there, understanding that this will require some troops to protect it and allow it to do its job? How can we improve the distribution and effectiveness of our aid? What can be done to expand our diplomatic efforts? Will civilians alone be able to do the job Canada wants done?
The reality is that NATO and our friends, engaged in their own planning, need to know Canada's intentions no later than mid-2010. A new Manley commission would allow for a careful consideration of what should and can be done.
Too much Canadian blood has already been spilled for us to simply walk away without carefully considering what we leave behind. Canadians want to help build a more peaceful Afghanistan. The real question now is how best to do that.
J. L. Granatstein is senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Taliban film shows leader is dead
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 BBC News
The Taliban in Pakistan have released a video confirming that their former leader Baitullah Mehsud is dead.
A video received by the BBC shows the body of the former head of Pakistan's largest Taliban group lying in a room. It is not clear where it was taken.
Mr Mehsud was killed on 6 August in the tribal region of South Waziristan in a missile attack by a suspected US drone.
The video came as officials said at least six people had been killed in a fresh drone attack in North Waziristan.
The strike near the town of Mir Ali was the third such attack in the past 24 hours against militant targets near the Afghan border, intelligence officials said.
Two missile attacks on Tuesday, one in South Waziristan and one in North Waziristan, left at least 12 suspected militants dead.
Covered
US and Pakistani officials were quick to claim Mr Mehsud's death, but it took nearly three weeks for the Taliban to admit he had been hurt in the attack and had later died.
It is not clear why they have decided to release the video of their former leader now. They announced his death and named a successor, Hakimullah Mehsud, in late August.
The BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad says the video shows Baitullah Mehsud lying on a flat surface in a room, amid virtual silence.
His entire body is covered in a white funeral shroud, so it is difficult to tell how his body was injured in the attack.
There are no marks on his face, except for a few scratches near his nose.
A man is shown in the video crouching near the body clearly stricken with grief.
The video, which lasts nearly two minutes, has little audio. Two sentences are spoken.
A voice, apparently that of the video maker, says: "If there was a leader, there would have been some preparations."
Later, the same voice says: "May Allah destroy these cruel people who do not use rifles and Allah knows what else, to kill us."
Pakistan's government publicly condemns drone attacks, arguing that they fuel anti-American feeling, but many observers say Islamabad secretly endorses the tactic.
Hundreds of militants and civilians have been killed in dozens of such attacks in the past year.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Half of Finns supports peace mission in Afghanistan
HELSINKI, Sept. 30 (Xinhua) -- About half of the Finnish people believed the country should continue its peace mission in Afghanistan, according to a survey by the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat on Wednesday.
Over 50 percent of the 1,000 respondents to the poll carried out by Finnish Gallup said Finland should not withdraw its troops, while 35 percent believed the opposite.
Men were slightly more inclined than women to favor the Afghan mission. Age also matters as younger people tended to be more supportive to sending troops there.
Finland currently has about 200 troops in northern Afghanistan. Some of them were sent there quite recently to help boost security for the presidential and local elections last month.
According to reports, the Finnish-patrolled areas of Afghanistan have become increasingly restive in recent months. Finnish peacekeepers in northern Afghanistan were attacked several times, but no casualties were reported.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Girl killed in RAF leaflet drop in Afghanistan
Wed Sep 30, 4:02 am ET
LONDON (AFP) – A young Afghan girl died after a box of public information leaflets, dropped by a Royal Air Force plane over Afghanistan, landed on her, a newspaper said Wednesday.
The Ministry of Defence said it was investigating the accident which it described as "highly regrettable," The Times said.
The drop occurred over a rural area of Afghanistan's southern Helmand province on June 23 as part of an information campaign, the newspaper said.
"Sadly one of the boxes failed to fully open and on landing caused serious injuries to an Afghan child," an RAF spokesman said.
"The child was treated at the local medical facility in Kandahar where, despite the best efforts of staff, she died as a result of her injuries."
Officials said it was not known what type of leaflet was being dropped.
The accident comes amid anger in Afghanistan over civilian casualties in the conflict between foreign and Afghan forces and an increasingly bloody Taliban insurgency to secure the war-torn country.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Suicide bomber kills American in Afghanistan
Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:07am EDT
KHOST, Afghanistan, Sept 30 (Reuters) - A suicide bomber rammed a car into a military convoy of foreign forces in southeastern Afghanistan on Wednesday, killing one American, officials said.
The attack occurred as the convoy crossed a bridge in the Mandozai district of Khost province, bordering Pakistan, district chief Wali Shah said.
"One of the cars belonging to the troops is on fire and there are some casualties among them, but at this stage I have no precise information," he told Reuters, adding that a foreign helicopter could be seen evacuating casualties from the scene.
A NATO official said that one U.S. serviceperson was killed by the blast, but gave no further details.
NATO-led forces have been struggling to contain an increasingly fierce Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.
The Taliban, who were removed from power in a U.S.-led invasion in 2001 and rely on roadside bombs and suicide attacks as part of their campaign, said a member of the group carried out the attack. (Writing by Sayed Salahuddin; Editing by Alex Richardson)
Back to Top
Back to Top
Young Afghans see hopes crushed
By Martin Patience BBC News, Kabul Tuesday, 29 September 2009
"I want to be a doctor," says Nagina, six, wearing a small white headscarf.
"I want to be a pilot," says Hemat, eight, who adds that he is top of his class in maths.
There is optimism among the young children at the Bibi Mahro school on the outskirts of Kabul and a cast-iron certainty about the jobs they would like to do in the future.
With much going wrong in Afghanistan, education is seen as one of the rare success stories in the country.
Cruelly crushed
It is an issue Western leaders cling to: more children are being educated than ever before - and girls are back in the classrooms having being effectively banned from going to school under the Taliban.
But Afghanistan is a country where aspirations can be cruelly crushed - and where the chances of becoming a pilot or a doctor are slim.
And that is down to a drastic shortage of university places. There are about 20,000 government places at university in Afghanistan, according to officials.
Rashid, 18, is a typical example. He is about to leave Bibi Mahro school and hopes to study engineering. But he knows there is every chance he will not find a university place.
Rashid says he worries that his life will come to "nothing".
"I cannot achieve my purpose in life," he says.
But going to university is more than just about Afghans getting a good job. It will be crucial when the West eventually leaves Afghanistan.
Part of the strategy here is to "institution build", in effect, create a pool of well-educated bureaucrats who can run the country themselves instead of relying on highly-paid international advisers.
Nation-building
"Everybody agrees that Afghans have to take care of their own country," says Anders Fange, the director of the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan.
"The question is where will all the managers, engineers, and teachers come from?"
While much of the focus of the West has been on military issues, there appears to be a renewed urgency to focus on this issue.
The UN special envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, has said the international community needs to focus more of it is efforts on nation-building.
Afghan Education Minister Dr Farooq Wardak admits that they have to act "rapidly" to produce professionals who can run the country.
"We are not blind to the challenges," he says. "Afghanistan cannot rely forever on very expensive international experts.
"We have to make our education system relevant to the reconstruction and labour market of Afghanistan."
But for now, there are tens of the thousands of young, bright Afghans who cannot find places at university - exactly the kind of people, you would think, who are needed to build Afghanistan.
Mushtaq Ahmad, 18, is one of them. He left school two years ago with excellent grades but is now jobless and has plenty of time on his hands.
He studies English, runs every morning and regularly visits Qargha Lake - a local beauty spot - with his friends, whose aspirations of being lawyers, engineers and accountants were also dashed.
Educated workforce
"If a person does not have any higher education he can lose his hope," he says.
"If I go to university, I will solve all my problems and I will serve my people and my country."
And that is the point. If you have a functioning, effective government - so the argument goes - Afghans will be willing to support it.
But Mushtaq warns that unless the government provides opportunities, then young people will be forced to find opportunities elsewhere.
"If our government doesn't pay attention to young people," he says, "the Taliban will be able to exploit them."
Ultimately, the West wants to put the running of the country firmly back into Afghan hands.
But there can be no long-term stability in the country without its own educated workforce.
Anders Fange, however, believes that there has not been enough focus on developing the education sector.
"It's too feeble," he says. "It's too little. And crucially, what's coming now, it might be too late."
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan recovery report: Balkh power struggle leaves locals fearful
Source: Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) 29 Sep 2009
Residents of Balkh province braced for violence as two prominent figures square off over the elections.
By Ahmad Kawoosh in Balkh (ARR No. 338, 29-Sep-09)
The unresolved presidential election appears to be worsening a dispute between the powerful governor of Balkh province and a local rival that observers fear will soon spiral out of control into open conflict.
On opposite sides of the political and ethnic divide, Atta Mohammad Noor, a Tajik who wields overwhelming power in Balkh, and Juma Khan Hamdard, an ethnic Pashtun commander from the north now serving as governor of Paktia, are trading accusations over the election and security.
Atta backed Dr Abdullah Abdullah in the August 20 presidential election; Hamdard supported President Hamed Karzai. While the long post-election uncertainty continues, the rivalry between the two is further destabilising a province already poised on the brink of chaos.
Early in September, Atta delivered a blistering speech in which he accused central government of sponsoring widespread electoral fraud in favour of Karzai. He also claimed that the interior ministry, through Hamdard, was distributing weapons to Balkh's Pashtun districts, with a view to undermining Atta's own authority.
Atta chose to speak on the eighth anniversary of the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the legendary Tajik commander who was killed two days before 9/11. Abdullah was Massoud's advisor and spokesman.
The interior ministry vehemently rejected Atta's accusations.
"We have not distributed weapons," said Zmarai Bashiri, spokesman for the ministry. "This is just a plot by Atta."
In turn, Atta's spokesman, Farhod Munir, alleged that it was Hamdard who was behind the deterioration of security in Balkh.
"This process is going on right now," he told IWPR. "Juma Khan has distributed more than 100 heavy and light weapons to commanders in Balkh."
Hamdard vehemently denies the charge, and in retaliation has brought up old accusations that Atta is behind a series of assassinations of Pashtun tribal leaders in the north.
"Juma Khan has never been associated with insecurity in Balkh," said Ruhullah Samoon, Hamdard's spokesperson. "And it is not Juma Khan who has been murdering Pashtun leaders."
Residents of Balkh say that commanders for both men are receiving weapons, and the atmosphere is becoming so tense that it is reminiscent of the worst days of the civil war, when rival leaders staged bloody battles inside Mazar-e-Sharif.
Those close to Atta say he turned sharply against Kabul earlier this year when Karzai passed him over for vice-president, choosing instead a bitter rival, Marshal Mohammad Qasim Fahim.
The Balkh governor, who is closely associated with the Tajik-dominated Jamiat-e-Islami party, shifted his considerable support to Abdullah, Karzai's main rival.
The president tried to rein in Atta, but the governor simply ignored him.
Now that Karzai is likely to finally be proclaimed the victor in the fiercely contested elections, Atta appears to be trying to shore up his position. This has been made all the more difficult by the reappearance of Hamdard.
Hamdard is now the governor of Paktia province, in eastern Afghanistan, but his political fortunes are firmly pinned to the north. The ethnic Pashtun commander earlier served as governor of Jowzjan, northwest of Balkh, where his tenure was marred by violent demonstrations against what the predominantly Uzbek population said were his Pashtun-centric policies.
Ethnicity and politics are an explosive brew in Afghanistan, and the people of Balkh are braced for trouble.
"This rivalry between Juma Khan and Atta will lead to ethnic conflict," warned Shakir Nasim, a student at Balkh University. "They are trying to remain in power by starting a house-to-house fight, where brother will turn against brother."
The enmity has reached such a point that it seems to have eclipsed the original reason for the dispute.
"If you listen to Karzai and Abdullah, they are much more conciliatory than these two guys (Atta and Hamdard)," said Ustad Satar, a teacher in Balkh. "This is what has people so worried. When Atta says he won't accept the results, what he is saying is that he does not want to lose his power. If Karzai wins, Atta is gone, with all his trappings. He is trying to save what he has. And on the other hand, Juma Khan is desperately trying to replace him."
Ramazan Bashar Dost, who came third in the presidential contest, said it was important for the dispute between the two men to be resolved because it risked destabilising the region.
"If these allegations of weapons distribution are true, then the perpetrators should be brought to justice," he said. "But if they are just empty accusations, then the governor of Balkh should be dragged into court. Any comments that lead to the deterioration of the security situation, particularly if they have a political or personal motivation, must be prevented."
The likely loser in all of this conflict is, as usual, the Afghan people. While two political factions struggle with each other, the insurgency is gaining ground by the day. Parts of two nearby provinces, Baghlan and Kunduz, are coming under control of the Taleban. Just one year ago, travel between Mazar-e-Sharif and Kunduz city was relatively safe, but few drivers will now take the four-hour car trip, given the level of fighting that occurs regularly along the road.
The tension has had a negative impact on the economic life of the region. Businessmen do not want to risk their capital in a war zone. Some are said to have withdrawn their investments. A series of kidnappings of local businessmen also have people worried.
"Atta's harsh comments and the kidnappings have the business community upset," said a money-changer in the Kefayat market of Balkh, who gave his name as Mahmoud.
If this keeps up, the north will soon begin to look like the south, say observers.
Amidst all these fears, the election still looms as a dark shadow. It took the Independent Electoral Commission almost a month to release even preliminary results, which showed Karzai with a clear win of 55 per cent to Abdullah's 28 per cent. Final results are expected within two weeks, which may or may not aggravate an already delicate situation.
The international community wants to have the process both resolved as quickly as possible and see the elections bring some stability to the country. The United States, in particular, has been active in trying to bring the leading candidates together to forge a coalition government. But for the people of Balkh, struggling with their own bitter stand-off, a coalition seems a very distant prospect.
Ahmad Kawoosh is an IWPR-trained reporter based in Balkh.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan immigrant pleads not guilty to bombing conspiracy
Denver airport shuttle driver Najibullah Zazi appears in federal court in New York and is being held without bail in what authorities call the first Al Qaeda-linked plot on U.S. soil since 9/11.
By Tina Susman Los Angeles Times September 30, 2009
Reporting from New York - An Afghan immigrant charged with conspiring to bomb U.S. targets in an attack possibly intended to coincide with the Sept. 11 anniversary pleaded not guilty in federal court Tuesday.
Najibullah Zazi of Aurora, Colo., was ordered held without bail in what authorities have called the first Al Qaeda-linked plot on U.S. soil since the 2001 attacks. He appeared beside his attorney, wearing orange sneakers, black trousers and a tunic. Zazi, 24, his heavy beard neatly trimmed, did not speak, and there were no family members in the packed courthouse.
Prosecutors said the case against Zazi would be "voluminous" and that the charge against him was "international in scope." Zazi has been charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, which could bring a life sentence if he is convicted.
The airport shuttle driver was arrested in Denver this month and initially charged with lying to federal agents who were investigating the alleged plot. His father, Mohammed Wali Zazi, also of Colorado, and a New York imam, Ahmad Wais Afzali, were arrested at the same time and also charged with lying to agents. Both have been freed on bail.
Only the younger Zazi, who has traveled twice to Peshawar, Pakistan, since August 2008, has been charged with conspiring to detonate explosives, using chemicals purchased in large amounts from beauty supply stores.
After Tuesday's brief hearing in federal court in Brooklyn, Zazi's attorney, J. Michael Dowling, challenged prosecutors to produce his client's alleged co-conspirators, saying that without them, the conspiracy charge would collapse.
"I've not seen any evidence whatsoever of an agreement between Mr. Zazi and anyone else," Dowling said.
"What I have seen is that Mr. Zazi traveled to Pakistan, which is not illegal," he said.
"Unless Mr. Zazi has an agreement with one or more people to commit an unlawful act, this conspiracy charge cannot be sustained," Dowling said.
Zazi's next court date was scheduled for December.
tina.susman@latimes.com
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).