Afghanistan News June 28 2010


Serving you since 1998
Home	News	News Archives	News by E-Mail	Links	More	About Us	Contact Us
June 2010: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

June 28, 2010

5 Confirmed for Cabinet in Afghanistan
By ABDUL WAHEED WAFA The New York Times June 28, 2010
KABUL, Afghanistan — The Afghan Parliament confirmed five nominees for cabinet posts Monday, leaving six slots vacant.

Afghan government rejects reports on talk with Taliban
KABUL, June 28 (Xinhua) -- Chief spokesman of Afghan president on Monday rejected media reports that the president had secretly met a senior leader of Taliban outfit fighting Afghan and NATO-led troops.

CIA head sees no deal with insurgents
Panetta doubts use of outreach in Afghanistan; Calls stability primary US goal
By Peter Finn Washington Post / June 28, 2010
WASHINGTON — CIA director Leon Panetta yesterday dismissed reports that a major element in the insurgency in Afghanistan was open to a Pakistan-brokered reconciliation process that could usher the group into a power-sharing arrangement in Kabul.

Taliban talks in Afghanistan should start soon, says head of army
General gives his 'private view' in interview on Radio 4, and warns he is not certain of military victory
Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk, Sunday 27 June 2010 20.30 BST
Coalition forces in Afghanistan should open talks with the Taliban "pretty soon" as part of a future exit strategy, the head of the army said today.

Mullen Visits Afghan Leaders and Allied Troops
By THOM SHANKER June 26, 2010 The New York Times
KABUL — With the American-led military mission temporarily a ship without a captain, the nation’s top admiral spent Saturday in this land-locked war zone reassuring Afghan leaders and allied troops that Washington will not pause in pressing forward its strategy — one that will require enhanced cooperation between civilian and military officials.

Angry House lawmaker cuts aid to Afghanistan
By Susan Cornwell – Mon Jun 28, 2:05 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A key U.S. House of Representatives Democrat said on Monday she is cutting billions of dollars in aid to Afghanistan from spending legislation because she is outraged over reports of corruption and donor aid being flown out the country.

Afghanistan in turmoil after peace talk rumours
Pakistan proposes peace talks between Hamid Karzai and a notorious insurgent commander triggering political tensions
Declan Walsh in Islamabad and Jon Boone in Kabul guardian.co.uk, Sunday 27 June 2010 21.41 BST
Pakistani proposals for peace talks between President Hamid Karzai and an insurgent commander have triggered political tensions inside Afghanistan that analysts warn could dangerously destabilise the country.

NATO's June death toll in Afghanistan nears 100
by Lynne O'Donnell June 28, 2010
KABUL (AFP) – The death toll for foreign soldiers in Afghanistan neared the grim milestone of 100 for June alone Monday as the CIA chief warned the anti-Taliban war would be tougher and longer than expected.

New US Commander, But Old Questions About Afghan War
VOA News June 27, 2010 Michael Bowman | Washington
U.S. President Barack Obama has a new commander for Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, after removing the previous commander for derogatory remarks about U.S. officials. The change in generals has not altered debate in Washington about how best to pursue victory in Afghanistan, or whether victory is even possible.

Petraeus May Need a New Team in Afghanistan, Senators Say
FOXNews.com - June 27, 2010
Two influential senators suggested Sunday that President Obama clean house on the civilian side of his Afghanistan war team if Gen. David Petraeus cannot get along with the same diplomats who may have sparred with outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

U.S. Republicans blast Obama's Afghanistan withdrawal date
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Xinhua) -- U.S. ranking Senate Republicans on Sunday blasted President Barack Obama's Afghanistan strategy, dismissing the July 2011 deadline as a "political decision" not based on military strategy.

Four Norwegian soldiers killed in Afghanistan
(AFP)
OSLO — A roadside bomb hit a Norwegian convoy in Afghanistan and killed four soldiers, the military announced, in the deadliest single attack on the Scandinavian country's troops in the conflict.

'World News' Political Insights -- President Obama Faces War at Home on Afghanistan
Leadership Change Doesn't Assuage Democrats' Concerns, as New War Funding Bill Looms
ANALYSIS By RICK KLEIN
WASHINGTON, June 27, 2010— For the Obama White House, it starts with the war abroad. Last week's widely praised leadership change notwithstanding, the situation in Afghanistan continues to look grimmer than when President Obama assumed office.

U.S. Republicans blast Obama's Afghanistan withdrawal date
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Xinhua) -- U.S. ranking Senate Republicans on Sunday blasted President Barack Obama's Afghanistan strategy, dismissing the July 2011 deadline as a "political decision" not based on military strategy.

Back to Top
5 Confirmed for Cabinet in Afghanistan
By ABDUL WAHEED WAFA The New York Times June 28, 2010
KABUL, Afghanistan — The Afghan Parliament confirmed five nominees for cabinet posts Monday, leaving six slots vacant.

This was the third effort by President Hamid Karzai to fill his 25-member cabinet.

Among those approved was a new interior minister, Gen. Bismillah Khan Mohammadi, formerly the army chief of staff, who will take the job that had been held by Hanif Atmar. Mr. Atmar resigned in June along with the head of the intelligence service after Mr. Karzai criticized their failure to intercept militants who attacked a nationwide peace conference.

The choice of General Mohammadi to lead the powerful Interior Ministry puts an ethnic Tajik, a member of perhaps Afghanistan’s most influential minority, in a critical post and provides the security ministries with some ethnic diversity. The defense minister is, like Mr. Karzai, an ethnic Pashtun, as is the acting head of the intelligence service.

Among the nominees rejected by the Parliament were two Hazaras, members of another minority ethnic group. One had headed the secretariat of the Independent Electoral Commission, which was accused of participating in the fraud that tarnished last year’s presidential elections.

Hazara members of Parliament angrily protested the rejections, rising from their seats and shouting at other lawmakers.

Mr. Karzai’s spokesman, Waheed Omar, said that the president was concerned about the rejection of the two Hazara nominees and that he would do whatever he could to ensure they had a role in the government.
Back to Top

Back to Top
Afghan government rejects reports on talk with Taliban
KABUL, June 28 (Xinhua) -- Chief spokesman of Afghan president on Monday rejected media reports that the president had secretly met a senior leader of Taliban outfit fighting Afghan and NATO-led troops.

Waheed Omar told a press briefing here, "There has not been any visit by any senior member of Taliban, (Sirajuddin) Haqqani group and anybody else."

He added that "We strongly condemn such baseless reports that are part of propaganda against Afghanistan government."

He made this comments in the wake of media reports that President Hamid Karzai has met Taliban commander Sirajuddin alongside with Pakistan's chief of army staff Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and chief of Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha.

Omar described such reports as part of a campaign to undermine the peace process in his country.

However, he said that President Karzai is to issue an order to form a High Council of Peace and Reconciliation soon to contacts the armed anti-government militants.

Afghan government in a bid to find permanent solution for crisis and ensure lasting peace in the country convened a consultative peace gathering early this month and the participants of the gathering urged the government to push for dialogue with Taliban and associated groups.
Back to Top

Back to Top
CIA head sees no deal with insurgents
Panetta doubts use of outreach in Afghanistan; Calls stability primary US goal
By Peter Finn Washington Post / June 28, 2010
WASHINGTON — CIA director Leon Panetta yesterday dismissed reports that a major element in the insurgency in Afghanistan was open to a Pakistan-brokered reconciliation process that could usher the group into a power-sharing arrangement in Kabul.

“We have seen no evidence that they are truly interested in reconciliation where they would surrender their arms, where they would denounce Al Qaeda, where they would really try to become part of that society,’’ Panetta said on ABC’s “This Week.’’

“Unless they’re convinced the United States is going to win and that they are going to be defeated, I think it is very difficult to proceed with a reconciliation that is going to be meaningful,’’ he said.

The remarks seemed designed to challenge efforts by senior Pakistani military and intelligence officials to orchestrate a deal that could drive a wedge between the President Hamid Karzai and the United States, and rehabilitate the Sirajuddin Haqqani network, an ally of Al Qaeda.

“Winning in Afghanistan is having a country that is stable enough to ensure that there is no safe haven for Al Qaeda or for a militant Taliban that welcomes Al Qaeda,’’ Panetta said. “That is the measure of success for the United States.’’

But Panetta acknowledged that the fight has proved difficult and “slower than I think anyone anticipated.’’ He said the Taliban were becoming more violent and more aggressive in “going after our troops,’’ including the use of roadside bombs.

President Obama has undertaken a new war plan that relies on 98,000 US troops to prop up the Afghan government and prevent Al Qaeda from returning. No longer overseeing this mission is General Stanley McChrystal, who was sacked last week in a stunning shake-up after his critical comments about the White House.

Panetta said Al Qaeda’s evolving attack strategy increasingly relies on operatives without any record of terrorism involvement or those already in the United States. As for Osama bin Laden, Panetta said it’s been years since the United States had good intelligence on his whereabouts.

Panetta estimated there are fewer than 100 Al Qaeda militants operating inside Afghanistan, with the rest hiding along Pakistan’s mountainous western border. He said US drone strikes and other spy operations have helped to “take down’’ half of Al Qaeda’s senior leaders.

Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday troops should begin pulling out of Afghanistan in July 2011, as Obama promised, because the Afghans must get the message that they need to take responsibility for their country.

In an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,’’ Levin said he even would like to see a major military operation in Kandahar delayed until more Afghans can join the fight. He estimated fewer than 9,000 Afghan forces are operating in Kandahar — a fraction of those needed to take control of the city known as the Taliban’s spiritual heartland. “If we want to succeed, the Afghans have got to succeed,’’ he said.

Other senators suggested they are sympathetic to the complexities Obama faces. The Taliban have “been running these areas for years now, and the idea we’re going to walk in and they’re going to run away, I think, was never contemplated,’’ said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island. “This is a tough fight, unfortunately.’’

The NATO-led command stressed yesterday that military operations to secure vast areas of Afghanistan would not be delayed by the ouster of McChrystal and mounting casualties.

To reinforce the message, NATO announced that more than 600 Afghan and international troops were battling Al Qaeda and Taliban forces yesterday in the eastern province of Kunar, which borders Pakistan.

Three members of the allied force were killed in the fighting, including two Americans, a military statement said. June has become the deadliest month of the war for NATO troops with at least 99 killed, 56 of them American. For US troops, the deadliest month was October 2009, with a toll of 59 dead.

There has been concern that the leadership shake-up will further slow a push into the volatile south that has already been delayed by weeks in some areas and months in others. But NATO spokesman Brigadier General Josef Blotz told reporters in Kabul that the military is not pausing because of the changes.

Material from the Associated Press was included in this report.
Back to Top

Back to Top
Taliban talks in Afghanistan should start soon, says head of army
General gives his 'private view' in interview on Radio 4, and warns he is not certain of military victory
Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk, Sunday 27 June 2010 20.30 BST
Coalition forces in Afghanistan should open talks with the Taliban "pretty soon" as part of a future exit strategy, the head of the army said today.

Insisting that talking to the enemy was eventually inevitable in a conflict of this kind, General Sir David Richards also seemed to cast doubt on whether the coalition would be able to inflict "strategic defeat" on the Taliban.

"If you look at any counter-insurgency campaign throughout history there's always been a point at which you start to negotiate, probably through proxies in the first instance," he said in an interview on Radio 4's the World this Weekend.

Claiming that he was merely expressing "a private view", he went on: "I think there's no reason why we shouldn't be looking at that sort of thing pretty soon."

Ministers have been cautious about talking up the prospects of holding peace talks for fear that it might be seen as an admission of defeat. But Richards said he did not think negotiations and outright war were "mutually contradictory".

"At the same time [as talking to the enemy] you have got to continue the work we are doing on the military, governance and development perspectives to make sure they don't think that we are giving up. It's a concurrent process," he said.

"We need to continue to make the Taliban feel they are being punished in a military sense.

"So that needs to continue, but whether we can turn that into some sense of strategic defeat I'm less certain."

Richards insisted that the people of Afghanistan did not want the Taliban to return and was confident the coalition was making progress in training Afghan forces. Creating a "stabilised Afghanistan under a competent government" would allow British troops to come home with a feeling of a "job well done", he said.

A Ministry of Defence source said although the government has not called for talks to start quite as directly as Richards did when expressing his "private view" on Radio 4, the general's comments were in line with ministerial thinking. "We can't win a purely military victory in Afghanistan," said the source. "It's going to have to go hand in hand with a political settlement."

Last week David Cameron said he wanted British troops home by 2015, but in a separate interview today Sir Richard Dannatt, Richards's predecessor, said: "There's a notion: strategic patience. Just think back. Northern Ireland, maybe very different circumstances, but we were there for 38 years. Bosnia, we were there for 14, 15. Kosovo, we were there for 10. These things take time. And although people quite rightly say 'well, we've been in Afghanistan now since 2001', actually this major operation that we're involved in began in 2006."
Back to Top

Back to Top
Mullen Visits Afghan Leaders and Allied Troops
By THOM SHANKER June 26, 2010 The New York Times
KABUL — With the American-led military mission temporarily a ship without a captain, the nation’s top admiral spent Saturday in this land-locked war zone reassuring Afghan leaders and allied troops that Washington will not pause in pressing forward its strategy — one that will require enhanced cooperation between civilian and military officials.

“The leadership has changed, but the policy hasn’t changed,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “The strategy hasn’t changed. And we are very much committed to it.”

Admiral Mullen arrived in the Afghan capital at a tumultuous moment: The allied commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, was fired by President Obama this week following publication of comments by the general and his staff that disparaged senior civilian officials. And the war effort is beset by rising violence and a frustratingly slow pace of political and economic progress required to attract a war-weary population.

Admiral Mullen’s agenda included private talks with the most senior level of the Afghan leadership, including President Hamid Karzai and Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak.

But as Mr. Obama himself acknowledged in a textured statement delivered when he relieved General McChrystal of command, the entire national security team — civilian and military — must now come together and work in greater accord.

“That is a mandate for the leadership,” Admiral Mullen told gatherings of military officers and American embassy personnel. “If we don’t make this happen, we are going to fail.”

And he bluntly warned, “We do not have the luxury of time.”

To aggressively press that agenda of enhanced civilian-military cooperation, Admiral Mullen met with the American ambassador in Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, a retired three-star general who had well-publicized disputes with General McChrystal, as well as with Mark Sedwell, the British diplomat who serves as NATO’s senior civilian representative here.

Mr. Sedwell offered an assessment of optimism for the effort now underway, but one tempered by an acknowledgement of past missteps in the fight against the insurgency.

“I don’t think we’ve regained the initiative yet, but we’ve arrested their initiative,” he said. “In the south, we are taking the fight to them. But that takes time to see.”

Admiral Mullen also had an encounter with another senior member of the administration’s national security team — the sort of meeting possible only in the rarified atmosphere of high-level government travel — when he crossed paths in Brussels with Richard A. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who had been a target of negative comments from the McChrystal team.

That meeting occurred on a runway in Brussels, where Admiral Mullen’s Air Force jet stopped to refuel en route to Kabul. Mr. Holbrooke came bounding up the stairs, as his plane, too, was refueling there on its way home from Pakistan.

The two huddled at length in private.

In Kabul, Admiral Mullen delivered a special message of encouragement to military officers who had served under General McChrystal.

“They are going to be a down group,” Admiral Mullen said in an interview. “Anytime you lose a commander, particularly one you care so much about, it crushes you.”

But he told senior military officers that General McChrystal would want them focusing on the mission, not on his abrupt departure from command. And he told the officers to carry away with them the correct example from the controversy leading to General McChrystal’s ouster.

He repeated two themes: The military must remain steadfast in its respect for civilian control of the armed forces, and the military must continue to engage with news organizations.

“We need to tell our story,” Admiral Mullen said. “We must not shy from engagement. We must not overcompensate.”

Admiral Mullen told several military meetings that he had paid a private, personal visit to the Washington home of General McChrystal and his wife after the announcement of the general’s forced retirement.

Mr. Obama nominated Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former Iraq commander and now in charge of American troops in the Middle East, to take over the mission in Afghanistan. He is scheduled to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday for a confirmation hearing set at an accelerated pace.

Admiral Mullen stressed that General Petraeus, who was deeply involved in developing the current counter-insurgency strategy for Afghanistan, would be able to take over command in a seamless transition.
Back to Top

Back to Top
Angry House lawmaker cuts aid to Afghanistan
By Susan Cornwell – Mon Jun 28, 2:05 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A key U.S. House of Representatives Democrat said on Monday she is cutting billions of dollars in aid to Afghanistan from spending legislation because she is outraged over reports of corruption and donor aid being flown out the country.

Representative Nita Lowey, who heads the House appropriations subcommittee on foreign aid, vowed not to spend "one more dime" on aid to Afghanistan until she can be sure it is not being abused.

The Democrat also announced hearings on corruption in Afghanistan, where the Obama administration is trying to work with the government of President Hamid Karzai to confront the Taliban insurgency.

An aide to Lowey said the Obama administration requested $3.9 billion for the accounts affected in the fiscal 2011 foreign aid appropriations bill before Lowey's committee.

Lowey said in her statement she would only leave "lifesaving humanitarian aid" in the bill, which her committee will consider on Wednesday.

Her statement comes amid increasing doubts among U.S. lawmakers about President Barack Obama's six-month-old troop buildup strategy against a resurgent Taliban.

She acted after a Wall Street Journal report on Monday said more than $3 billion in cash had been flown out of Kabul airport in the past three years, and that U.S. investigators think some of the money being flown out to safe havens is diverted U.S. aid.

On the same day, a report in the Washington Post said that top officials in Karzai's government have repeatedly derailed corruption investigations of politically connected Afghans.

"The alleged shipment of billions in donor funds out of Afghanistan and allegations of Afghan government insiders impeding corruption investigations are outrageous," Lowey said.

"I do not intend to appropriate one more dime for assistance to Afghanistan until I have confidence that U.S. taxpayer money is not being abused to line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords, and terrorists," she said.

Lowey said she would have hearings after Congress' recess next week to "get to the bottom" of corruption allegations in Afghanistan.

The stripped-out assistance would include economic support funds for Afghanistan and money for things like narcotics control, military education and training, health and anti-terrorism, an aide said.

Funding to pay for the surge of 30,000 troops that Obama has ordered to Afghanistan would not be affected, although the House also has yet to vote on the $33 billion that the Pentagon requested for that. The Senate has approved those funds.

(Editing by Vicki Allen)
Back to Top

Back to Top
Afghanistan in turmoil after peace talk rumours
Pakistan proposes peace talks between Hamid Karzai and a notorious insurgent commander triggering political tensions
Declan Walsh in Islamabad and Jon Boone in Kabul guardian.co.uk, Sunday 27 June 2010 21.41 BST
Pakistani proposals for peace talks between President Hamid Karzai and an insurgent commander have triggered political tensions inside Afghanistan that analysts warn could dangerously destabilise the country.

Western officials say Pakistan's ISI spy agency has offered to negotiate with Sirajuddin Haqqani – an al-Qaida linked commander – as part of a broader initiative to find a find a settlement to the conflict.

Pakistan's army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, and the head of the ISI, Lieutenant General Shuja Pasha, are due to arrive in Kabul tomorrow for their third meeting with Karzai in recent months.

Frosty relations between the two sides have thawed in recent months; about 10 days ago reports emerged from Pakistan that the ISI was offering to "deliver" the Haqqani network, which is based in North Waziristan in the tribal belt.

Today a suspected CIA drone attacked a compound in North Waziristan, killing at least three people, in the second strike in as many days. At the same time al-Jazeera television reported that the talks were so advanced that Karzai had met Haqqani in the presence of Kayani and Pasha – a report that officials denied emphatically.

But the very notion of Pakistani-sponsored talks has sparked consternation among Afghanistan's ethnically fractured opposition, who fear the rapprochement with Islamabad will see them excluded from any future political settlement.

"None of the players believe in the current strategy," opposition leader Abdullah Abdullah told the Guardian. "Karzai is going down the drain and taking the international community with him.

"If he thinks he can give [the Taliban] a few ministries and a few provinces, they will simply take those provinces and then force him out."

Abdullah said he was appalled that the Afghan president had recently referred to the Taliban with the affectionate "jan" suffix. "Talib-jan is how you would refer to your dearest young son – it would be considered too soft to use on a teenager."

Three weeks ago Karzai's intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, and his interior minister, Hanif Atmar, quit in protest at the new Pakistan policy. Both men are Tajiks; Saleh was previously a leading member of the Northern Alliance that helped topple the Taliban in 2001.

Michael Semple, a regional expert, said he was alarmed at the speed with which the political class was fissuring.

"Sane people, who've been part of this process all along, are now saying the country won't survive till the end of the year," he said.

The proposed Haqqani talks have also annoyed US officials, who complain that Karzai is increasingly excluding them in favour of direct dealings with Pakistan. "Karzai hasn't done the groundwork for a deal. What happened with Saleh shows that there's a lot of consternation out there," said one western official.

The ISI, which has long been accused of harbouring the Taliban inside Pakistan's long western border, insists it is not manoeuvring to return the group to power in Afghanistan. An official said policy was to seek a political settlement involving all Afghan factions. "We can live with a hostile Afghanistan, as long as it is peaceful and stable," he said.

Relations between Karzai and Pakistan are thawing rapidly. Pakistani officials have begun to speak warmly of a figure they previously disparaged. The ISI offered him "unconditional support on any and all decisions he makes about the future of Afghanistan," the official said.

Despite the intense speculation, a senior Nato official in Kabul said progress towards a deal was "pretty tentative", adding there was "no real substance in terms of talks and what a deal with the ISI might look like". But he said that with a huge fight against "their own Taliban" the Pakistanis were reluctant to divert soldiers to tackling sanctuaries enjoyed by the Afghan Taliban. And although Karzai has tempered his anti-Pakistan rhetoric in public, he still distrusts the Pakistanis. "If anything, rapprochement between the two sides is frustratingly slow," he added.

It is not clear whether the ISI, for all its reputed influence, is able to "deliver" the Taliban or Haqqani group that easily. One western official said that while the agency has a strong relationship with the military groups, it was not clear whether it extended to "command and control".

"It's like Iran and Hezbollah," said the official. "It's much easier to judge when they are both moving in the same direction. But that is not always the case."

Semple, the analyst, warned that as players to the conflict jockey for position, some were engaging in "disinformation warfare" to influence public opinion. So far, he said, "the story with Haqqani talks is that it's just a story."

Jalaluddin Haqqani: CIA-backed folk hero now allied to al-Qaida

Formerly supported by the CIA, now closely allied to al-Qaida, the Haqqani network has evolved into one of the most ruthlessly formidable challenges to the Kabul government. It is also one of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency's oldest links in the region.

Jalaluddin Haqqani's relationship with the Pakistani agency stretches back to 1976, when the ISI sought to expand its influence in Afghanistan. The thick-bearded tribesman rose to fame in the 1980s as one of the most fearsome guerrilla fighters in the war against the Soviet occupation.

Haqqani (right) received generous support from the CIA and was a favourite of Charlie Wilson, the flamboyant Texan congressman backing the war, who called him "goodness personified". Haqqani was also celebrated in the Middle East as a folk hero of the jihad.

During tours of mosques in Saudi Arabia, he was showered with donations by conservative Muslims. He also came into contact with Osama bin Laden. In 1986 Haqqani allowed the Saudi to build a rebel base on his territory called the Lion's Den. In 2001, he reportedly helped Bin Laden flee from Afghanistan.

Since that year the Haqqani group has been allied to, but separate from, the Afghan Taliban. Leadership has passed to Haqqani's son, Siraj, who over the past two years has been accused of orchestrating major suicide assaults in Kabul. Haqqani militants have bombed the Indian embassy twice, the five-star Serena hotel and the entrance to Bagram airbase, and have been linked to an attack on a US base in Afghanistan last December that killed seven CIA employees. This year CIA drones have hit Haqqani territory in North Waziristan with great ferocity, killing several hundred of the group's footsoldiers but not its leaders.

Western officials say much of the Haqqanis' funding comes from the Arabian Gulf, often carried into Pakistan by couriers disguised as religious pilgrims. Declan Walsh
Back to Top

Back to Top
NATO's June death toll in Afghanistan nears 100
by Lynne O'Donnell June 28, 2010
KABUL (AFP) – The death toll for foreign soldiers in Afghanistan neared the grim milestone of 100 for June alone Monday as the CIA chief warned the anti-Taliban war would be tougher and longer than expected.

Britain's Ministry of Defence said a soldier had been killed in the southern province of Helmand on Sunday, taking the June toll as tallied by AFP to 99 -- already the worst monthly total in nearly nine years of fighting.

The British death came after four Norwegian soldiers died when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in the northern province of Faryab on Sunday.

Norwegian Defence Minister Grete Faremo said Monday she would travel to Afghanistan to bring home the bodies.

"I will accompany the coffins back home," she told reporters, adding she would "travel to Afghanistan as soon as possible".

The toll for the year to date is 319 -- compared to 520 for all of 2009.

NATO says the dramatic upswing in casualty numbers in June has been caused by the alliance stepping up military operations and taking the fight to the Taliban in areas where the Islamist militia has previously been unchallenged.

The rising casualties come as questions mount in the United States and Europe about military strategy in Afghanistan following last week's sacking of the top NATO commander, US General Stanley McChrystal.

Eight civilians including women and children were also killed on Monday when a Taliban-style bomb ripped through a mini-van in the central province of Ghazni, police said.

NATO said it had killed several rebels in a pre-dawn raid near the troubled southern city of Kandahar but local villagers said the dead were all civilians.

Police in the city said they were investigating allegations that the dead were all local men who had been sleeping on roofs to escape the heat.

The issue of civilian casualties is incendiary among Afghans, who blame the presence of foreign troops for the ongoing violence, despite a UN report early this year that showed that most civilian deaths are caused by Taliban attacks.
McChrystal won plaudits in Afghanistan for introducing battlefield measures aimed at reducing civilian casualties, principally with an approach known as "courageous restraint," which encouraged soldiers to hold fire until they were sure their targets were bona fide insurgents.

However, the policy has been criticised among the ranks, where it is blamed for the rising number of deaths and injuries being suffered by NATO troops.

McChrystal was forced to step down after disparaging remarks about US administration officials, including President Barack Obama, emerged in an explosive article in Rolling Stone magazine.

The article raised questions about whether McChrystal's counter-insurgency strategy, under which an extra 30,000 US troops were scheduled for deployment in Afghanistan, was working and fully supported by the US administration.

CIA director Leon Panetta acknowledged "serious problems" with the Afghan war.

"We're dealing with a country that has problems with governance, problems with corruption, problems with narcotics trafficking, problems with a Taliban insurgency," Panetta told ABC television. "We are making progress. But it's harder and slower than anyone anticipated."

Efforts to support President Hamid Karzai's government are also severely undermined by widespread corruption, with many Afghans distrustful of Kabul.

Karzai says that eradicating graft is a priority of his second presidency -- won last year in corruption-riddled polls. But fears that little headway is being made were stoked Monday by a Wall Street Journal report.

The newspaper said more than three billion dollars in cash had left the country in recent years, and quoted unnamed sources as saying the money was probably ill-gotten gains from corruption and the opium trade.

Much of southern Afghanistan is blighted by the Taliban insurgency, now in its deadliest phase since the US-led invasion ousted the hardline Islamist regime in late 2001 and installed a Western-backed administration.

McChrystal has been replaced in Afghanistan by General David Petraeus, the architect of the successful surge strategy in Iraq that is credited with bringing the country back from the brink of civil war.
Back to Top

Back to Top
New US Commander, But Old Questions About Afghan War
VOA News June 27, 2010 Michael Bowman | Washington
U.S. President Barack Obama has a new commander for Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, after removing the previous commander for derogatory remarks about U.S. officials. The change in generals has not altered debate in Washington about how best to pursue victory in Afghanistan, or whether victory is even possible.

In recent days, top Democratic and Republican lawmakers have endorsed President Barack Obama's decision to name a new commander for the war in Afghanistan as necessary and proper. But bipartisan consensus on the way forward in the Afghan war remains as elusive as ever.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina blasted the president for maintaining a target date for withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan, saying it undermines U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in the country.

"If you are sitting down with a tribal leader and everybody in Afghanistan believes that we [the United States] are going to begin to leave in July, 2011 no matter what, it is going to be hard to win over people," he said. "And that has got to change, or we are going to lose."

But Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California says the new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, will be given leeway to determine the pace of the withdrawal and how it is carried out.

"Let us talk about the deadline. This is a transition point toward the beginning of a withdrawal, or a drawdown," said Feinstein. "And I think he [Petraeus] has flexibility, realistically."

President Obama has said the withdrawal target date does not mean that U.S. forces will disappear from Afghanistan overnight. Last year, the president ordered additional troops to the country to combat insurgents and accelerate the training of Afghan security forces.

Speaking on ABC's This Week program, CIA Director Leon Panetta said the U.S. goals in Afghanistan are unchanged.

"Our purpose, our whole mission there, is to make sure that al-Qaida never finds another safe haven from which to attack this country," said Panetta. "That is the fundamental goal."

Panetta acknowledged the mission faces what he termed "serious problems", including a resilient Taliban insurgency, corruption on the part of Afghan officials, and a flourishing drug trade in the country.

The lack of progress in Afghanistan after nearly a decade of U.S. military involvement has some Democrats saying it is time to cut American losses. Appearing on NBC's Meet The Press program, Congresswoman Barbara Lee said that, unless U.S. commanders are given a clear withdrawal date, they will always find a way to justify extending the mission.

"I believe that the longer we stay in Afghanistan, we are going to hear generals say, 'It [the mission] may not be working," said Lee. "We need more money, more time, more troops'. Or if there is progress being made, we are going to hear the generals saying, 'We need more money, more troops and a longer timeframe'."

U.S. and NATO troops quickly routed Taliban forces in Afghanistan months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. In the years since, the Taliban has regrouped and established effective control over large swaths of Afghan territory.

Afghanistan's drug trade has also flourished, and the government of President Hamid Karzai has been beset by allegations of illegitimacy and corruption. Fledgling Afghan security forces continue to receive training, but have yet to demonstrate they can function on their own.
Back to Top

Back to Top
Petraeus May Need a New Team in Afghanistan, Senators Say
FOXNews.com - June 27, 2010
Two influential senators suggested Sunday that President Obama clean house on the civilian side of his Afghanistan war team if Gen. David Petraeus cannot get along with the same diplomats who may have sparred with outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Two influential senators suggested Sunday that President Obama clean house on the civilian side of his Afghanistan war team if Gen. David Petraeus cannot get along with the same diplomats who may have sparred with outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also said the withdrawal timetable needs to be flexible, though the president has set July 2011 as the deadline to get out.

The senators spoke just days after McChrystal resigned over a Rolling Stone article in which he and his aides were quoted mocking the Obama administration, particularly Amb. Karl Eikenberry and Special Representative Richard Holbrooke. The article reflected deep divisions between the military and civilian side of the war effort.

While lawmakers were nearly unanimous in saying Obama had to change generals after the article, Feinstein said those diplomats should not get a free pass with Petraeus. Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," the senator said Petraeus must be a "command presence" on the team.

"(Petraeus) should make the calls. If he can't work with the ambassador, the ambassador should change. If he can't work with Holbrooke, that should change," Feinstein said. "I think we put all of our eggs in the Petraeus basket."

Graham said it's up to the president whether to make any more changes, but he described the relationship between the military and civilian sides as "dysfunctional."

"This is a chance to start over completely, and the military-civilian relationship is very important," Graham said. "But I'm very concerned if nothing changes on the civilian side."

Eikenberry threw a curveball into negotiations last year over military strategy in Afghanistan after he sent cables questioning the troop buildup advocated by McChrystal. In the Rolling Stone piece, McChrystal said he felt "betrayed" by the ambassador and suggested Eikenberry was just trying to look good for posterity.

"I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," he said. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.' "

Graham also said the ambassador's working relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "poor."

Meanwhile, with Petraeus' confirmation hearing set to be held this week, Graham said he wants the administration to clarify how hard-and-fast the withdrawal deadline is.

Feinstein said that if Petraeus asks for more time, "I would say give it to him."
Back to Top

Back to Top
U.S. Republicans blast Obama's Afghanistan withdrawal date
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Xinhua) -- U.S. ranking Senate Republicans on Sunday blasted President Barack Obama's Afghanistan strategy, dismissing the July 2011 deadline as a "political decision" not based on military strategy.

"It was purely a political decision, not one based on facts on the ground, not one based on military strategy," Republican Senator John McCain said on NBC's "Meet the Press," referring to a strategy unveiled by President Obama in December, which called for a buildup of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and beginning pulling out in July 2011.

"You tell the enemy you're leaving, they will wait," he said. " In wars you declare when you're leaving after you've succeeded."

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham joined McCain in criticizing Obama's Afghan timetable.

"If everybody in Afghanistan believes that we're going to begin to leave in July 2011 no matter what, it's going to be hard to win over people on the fence and that's gotta change, or we're gonna lose," he said on "Fox News Sunday".

Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss said on CNN's "State of the Union" that "it's a huge mistake to even put that deadline out there."

"Because the enemy is watching, and you can rest assured that they are going to be looking to see if we in fact intend to begin pulling out come July 1 of 2011. And if that remains a hard and firm date then you better believe they are going to sit back and allow us to start pulling out then hit us with their full force," he explained.

Obama's new Afghan strategy did not proceed as smoothly as anticipated. After U.S. and NATO forces having mounted a major push against Taliban in Marja in southern Afghanistan earlier this year, militants there have regained momentum in recent months, forcing the U.S. to postpone major military operations to secure Kandahar, the birthplace of Taliban in Afghanistan.
Back to Top

Back to Top
Four Norwegian soldiers killed in Afghanistan
(AFP)
OSLO — A roadside bomb hit a Norwegian convoy in Afghanistan and killed four soldiers, the military announced, in the deadliest single attack on the Scandinavian country's troops in the conflict.

"Four soldiers were killed this afternoon," military spokeswoman Heidi Langvik Hansen told AFP.

"They were in their armoured vehicle when a bomb exploded on the side of the road, in the province of Faryab, in the north of the country," she said, declining to give more details until families of the dead had been notified.

June has been the deadliest month for international troops under NATO command fighting an almost nine-year Islamist insurgency led by the Taliban.

The latest deaths took to 98 the number of soldiers to be killed in Afghanistan this month, according to an AFP count.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said he was "deeply saddened" by the deaths.

"Our thoughts are above all with those who were close to the victims," said General Bernt Iver Ferdinand Brovold, head of the operational chief of staff, in an army statement.

Defence Minister Grete Faremo said, "Norway has been hit hard. The loss deeply affects us all. It's hard and it reminds us of the risk we're taking."

The attack takes to nine the number of Norwegian soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan, which international forces invaded in late 2001 to remove the Taliban regime.

Norway has about 500 soldiers in the country, most of them stationed in the capital Kabul or in the north.
Back to Top

Back to Top
'World News' Political Insights -- President Obama Faces War at Home on Afghanistan
Leadership Change Doesn't Assuage Democrats' Concerns, as New War Funding Bill Looms
ANALYSIS By RICK KLEIN
WASHINGTON, June 27, 2010— For the Obama White House, it starts with the war abroad. Last week's widely praised leadership change notwithstanding, the situation in Afghanistan continues to look grimmer than when President Obama assumed office.

Then there's the war at home. And with a huge war funding bill looming as a must-pass item this week, that's no prettier to look at.

Democrats in the House are set to voice their growing unease over the course of the war in Afghanistan, as Congress debates a $33 billion funding measure. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned that the bill must pass by the Fourth of July to keep the dollars and resources flowing without the Pentagon having to do "stupid things."

War funding measures are typically Congress' best opportunity to influence war strategy. While the president is commander-in-chief, the purse strings are controlled on Capitol Hill.

Liberal voices have grown increasingly frustrated by the president's strategy in Afghanistan. They are particularly concerned that the president won't make good on the substance of his promise to begin troop drawdowns in July 2011.

Previous efforts by the left to influence war policy when funding bills come up for debate have fallen far short. But there's an additional political cross-current this time around that could have major consequences for efforts to pass the funding.

The president has been able to count on large numbers of Republican votes for previous war-funding measures, based in part on the GOP's desire not to be seen as cutting off funding for U.S. troops.

But rising concerns about deficits and debt are complicating the picture. Republican leaders have served notice that any attempt to add domestic-spending priorities to a war-funding bill will be met with strong opposition from Republican members.

That means that, even as Gen. David Petraeus glides to confirmation as Gen. Stanley McChrystal's replacement as the top commander in Afghanistan, members of Congress will be asking tough questions of -- and perhaps forcing some significant concessions from -- the Obama administration's national-security team.

Liberals were disappointed that McChrystal's ouster didn't prompt a more full debate over the strategic concerns that McChrystal gave voice to in the Rolling Stone article that rocked Washington last week.

They will get an airing this week -- and the president will be pressed to make good on key campaign promises while he seeks to make progress on a war that's increasingly his property.

Gearing Up for a Supreme Battle
It's not just war policy where the president's agenda will be undergoing harsh scrutiny on Capitol Hill this week.

The Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan aren't likely to produce much in the war of fireworks that could jeopardize her confirmation.

But in the absence of a realistic way to defeat Obama's nominee, the president's agenda will come under a microscope. Republicans plan to use this week's hearings to highlight particular aspects of the president's agenda -- think health care, immigration and campaign-finance reform -- in areas where judges are likely to be called on to settle disputes.

Republicans are loath to rule out a filibuster of Kagan -- but only because that procedural weapon is the only real way that they maintain any political leverage in the confirmation process.

Yet they feel that even a president riding a bit of a winning streak is worth taking on in a battle with the stakes as high as a seat on the Supreme Court. The issues raised this week will come up again and again in other contexts this year, and Republicans senators want to use the hearings to further their case in areas where they see political advantage.
Back to Top

Back to News Archirves of 2010

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).