 |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serving you since 1998 | ||||||||||||
|
|
Petraeus Hearings: Easy Confirmation, Difficult Task
TIME - Nation By Mark Thompson Tuesday, Jun. 29, 2010
Washington - General David Petraeus always wanted to come back before the Senate Armed Services Committee for a third confirmation hearing. But he was hoping it would be for promotion to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Senate Expected to Swiftly Confirm US General for Afghan War
VOA News June 29, 2010 Kate Woodsome
Washington, D.C - General David Petraeus is considered one of the most respected and reliable soldiers in the U.S. military. Credited with helping to turn around the war in Iraq, General Petraeus has been asked by President Barack Obama to do the same thing in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan: Eyes Wide Shut
President Obama's ambivalence toward the war is energizing our enemies and undermining our allies.
Wall Street Journal Bret Stephens JUNE 29, 2010
With a wink of its left eye, the Obama administration tells its liberal base that a year from now the U.S. will be heading for a quick Afghan exit. "Everyone knows there's a firm date," insists White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
Damning report on state of Afghan security forces
June 29, 2010 BBC News
The US and its partners have no effective way of monitoring how successfully Afghan forces operate on their own, US auditors say.
With Command Shift in Afghanistan, Talk Turns to Withdrawal
New York Times By PETER BAKER June 28, 2010
WASHINGTON - When he ordered 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan last December, President Obama stressed that they would not stay forever. “After 18 months,” he said, “our troops will begin to come home.”
Karzai officials seen hindering bribery probes
The Washington Post By Greg Miller and Ernesto Londoño 28/06/2010
Top officials in President Hamid Karzai's government have repeatedly derailed corruption investigations of politically connected Afghans, according to U.S. officials who have provided Afghanistan's authorities with wiretapping technology and other assistance in efforts to crack down on endemic graft.
Furious US lawmaker blocks Afghan aid
By Shaun Tandon June 28, 2010
(AFP) – WASHINGTON — A senior US lawmaker has angrily blocked billions of dollars in aid to Afghanistan, vowing not to give "one more dime" until Afghan President Hamid Karzai acts against corruption.
UN vehicle attacked in Afghan capital
June 29, 2010 Press TV
Militants armed with heavy weapons have attacked a UN vehicle in Kabul's diplomatic area amid rising violence in war-weary Afghanistan.
Report faults U.S. for being too optimistic about Afghan security capabilities
The Washington Post By Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The U.S. military has systematically overstated or failed to adequately measure the capabilities of Afghan security forces, whose performance is key to the Obama administration's exit strategy for the war, according to a new government audit.
Pakistan May Transfer Captured Taliban Commander To Afghanistan
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty June 29, 2010
A spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai says Pakistan may extradite a captured top Taliban commander to Afghanistan, RFE/RL's Radio Mashaal reports.
What would reconciliation look like for the U.S. and Taliban?
The Washington Post By David Ignatius Tuesday, June 29, 2010
KABUL - Even as the United States and the Taliban continue to pound each other on the battlefield, the two adversaries appear to be conducting parallel internal debates about what an eventual political reconciliation might involve.
Afghans Allege Civilians Killed in NATO Operation
VOA News June 28, 2010
NATO says a joint Afghan-international force killed a Taliban commander and several armed individuals in southern Afghanistan, but local villagers say the dead are all civilians.
Panetta says Afghan insurgents show no real interest in reconciliation talks
The Washington Post By Peter Finn and Karen DeYoung Monday, June 28, 2010
CIA Director Leon Panetta said Sunday that U.S. officials have not seen "any firm intelligence" that insurgent groups in Afghanistan are interested in reconciliation, and he dismissed reports that a top militant leader is open to a Pakistan-brokered agreement.
1 killed, 4 injured as police clash with farmers in NE Afghan province
FAIZABAD, Afghanistan, June 29 (Xinhua) -- One civilian was killed and four policemen sustained injuries as farmers resisted police attempt to destroy poppy fields in northeast Badakhshan province of Afghanistan, deputy to provincial governor Shamsul Rahman Shams said Tuesday.
Turkey to receive injured Afghan soldiers for medical treatment
ANKARA, June 28 (Xinhua) -- Turkey will receive a total of 25 amputated and seriously wounded Afghan soldiers for medical treatment and rehabilitation on Tuesday, Turkish foreign ministry said in an official statement on Monday.
Afghan withdrawal possible in 2012: Polish defence chief
WARSAW, June 28 (Xinhua) -- Polish Defence Minister Bogdan Klich on Monday said that a withdrawal of Polish troops from Afghanistan is possible to the end of 2012.
The Afghan women jailed for 'bad character'
By Lyse Doucet BBC Newsnight June 29, 2010
Meet Sorarya and you meet "attitude".
It has something to do with the way she wears her red tunic and trousers, her short cropped black leather jacket, and the way she chews gum and rolls her eyes.
Afghan Taliban threatens mining companies: monitor
June 28, 2010
(AFP) – WASHINGTON — The Taliban in Afghanistan has threatened foreign companies hoping to extract newly-disclosed mineral wealth in the poverty-wracked country, a group monitoring its communications reported Monday.
Back to Top
Petraeus Hearings: Easy Confirmation, Difficult Task
TIME - Nation By Mark Thompson Tuesday, Jun. 29, 2010
Washington - General David Petraeus always wanted to come back before the Senate Armed Services Committee for a third confirmation hearing. But he was hoping it would be for promotion to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — not to demote him to run one of two wars he's now overseeing as chief of U.S. Central Command. But that's what's happening Tuesday morning, as Petraeus returns to testify before the panel he fainted in front of two weeks ago, several days before precision-guided munitions disguised as a Rolling Stone magazine profile blew up the career of General Stanley McChrystal.
In some ways, the hearing will echo much of what Petraeus told the Senate and House armed-services committees recently, as nervous lawmakers sought his calm demeanor to soothe their own heebie-jeebies over a war that increasingly seems bogged down. Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate panel, said Monday that it is likely to zero in on two key questions: How firm is President Obama's July 2011 date to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, and why isn't the Afghan military doing more to defeat the Taliban?
While Obama and his camp are somewhat leery of Petraeus — there was a whiff of desperation when they tapped him to succeed McChrystal last Wednesday — the stakes couldn't be higher. When Bush signed off on Petraeus' plan for the Iraq surge, the President was near the end of his second term. This time around, Obama is wondering if he can win a second term, and Petraeus suddenly looms large in his re-election hopes.
Over breakfast with reporters covering the Defense Department on Monday, Levin said the coming battle for Kandahar will be key to determining two things: the success of the U.S. surge in Afghanistan and whether Obama can keep to his target of beginning to pull U.S. troops out next July. While the President said Sunday that there is "a lot of obsession" over the date, Levin said Obama's decision to set it "was critically important towards maintaining the support of the American people for a war which has gone on so long."
The day Petraeus fainted — due to what he called a combination of dehydration and jet lag — he told Levin's panel that the deadline isn't firm. "July 2011 is not the date where we race for the exits," Petraeus said on June 15. "It is the date where — having done an assessment — we begin a process of transition of tasks to Afghan security forces" that may permit some U.S. troops to come home.
Levin warned that the delay in launching the U.S.-led offensive on Kandahar — the Taliban's stronghold — as well as mounting U.S. casualties are triggering "a fraying of that support" among Democrats. Levin also grumbled that Afghan troops represent less than half of the forces being prepped to take Kandahar. "The success of the mission is dependent upon the Afghan military growing in number and growing in capability," he said, adding that he expects Petraeus will win confirmation easily.
In response to a likely line of questioning Tuesday, Petraeus will make it clear that he embraces McChrystal's curbs on the use of U.S. firepower in order to reduce Afghan civilian casualties. While GIs have been complaining that such restrictions put them at risk, Petraeus recently told the panel "we will drop a bomb anywhere, at any time, if our troopers' safety is in jeopardy."
Two Marines are most likely to be chosen to succeed Petraeus as chief of U.S. Central Command, which oversees the world's most turbulent region, stretching from Egypt to Pakistan. They include his deputy at Centcom, Lieut. General John Allen, and James Mattis, a four-star general who is wrapping up a tour as head of U.S. Joint Forces Command, which oversees the Pentagon's push for multiservice cooperation. As for McChrystal, he informed the U.S. Army on Monday that he planned to retire.
In the meantime, Petraeus is being hailed by Republicans — and grudgingly by many Democrats — for his success in bringing an uneasy peace to Iraq following the 2007 surge of U.S. troops under his command. But those laurels have largely wilted, and he now has to start a fresh track record in Kabul. Unlike in Iraq, where Petraeus wrote and then implemented his counterinsurgency strategy, he'll have to work off the war plan McChrystal devised for Afghanistan.
Granted, as McChrystal's boss and mentor, Petraeus' fingerprints are all over the existing strategy. But taking command just as the Afghan surge of 30,000 additional troops is nearly complete — and the U.S. troop presence nears 100,000 — is more difficult than being there for the launch. "He did very well in Iraq," Levin said Monday, "and I am hopeful that he will be able to do the same thing in Afghanistan."
Back to Top
Back to Top
Senate Expected to Swiftly Confirm US General for Afghan War
VOA News June 29, 2010 Kate Woodsome
Washington, D.C - General David Petraeus is considered one of the most respected and reliable soldiers in the U.S. military. Credited with helping to turn around the war in Iraq, General Petraeus has been asked by President Barack Obama to do the same thing in Afghanistan.
Petraeus likely will face questions from U.S. senators about the counterinsurgency strategy he championed in Iraq, and how effectively it can be applied in South Asia. The approach emphasizes protecting the local population and in Iraq it helped achieve dramatic results. Following the change there, a powerful Shi'ite militia gave up its weapons and Sunni insurgents switched sides to support the U.S. fight against al-Qaida.
IHS Janes Security Analysis group analyst Jeremy Binnie predicts that it is less likely that troops in Afghanistan will be able to encourage lower-level militants to lay down their arms.
"You have to negotiate from a position of strength," said Binnie. So for as long as, especially the more we talk about withdrawal, the more we talk about changing strategy, the more that sort of empowers the Taliban and they think they're going to win and no one's going to switch sides."
Binnie also points out that the Obama's counterinsurgency strategy faces far greater challenges in Afghanistan than in Iraq because the Kabul government is plagued by corruption.
"There's a widespread perception that the Afghan government isn't really effective enough. And ultimately, the question is if the plan is to hand over the Afghans, can that government in Kabul actually run the show? And a lot of people are pretty doubtful about that," said Binnie.
Lawmakers say Petraeus undoubtedly will be confirmed for the post because of his record of success. If that happens, he would replace General Stanley McChrystal, who resigned last week over disparaging remarks he and his aides made about President Obama and his staff.
Both McChrystal and Petraeus endorsed Mr. Obama's plan to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan to reign in the insurgency. Congress has supported the plan, but Democratic lawmakers weary after nine years of war say they want to see progress by the end of the year. They also are looking for Petraeus to assure them that U.S. troops will begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in July 2011, as Mr. Obama has pledged.
In Kabul, NATO spokesman Brigadier Josef Blotz said the political drama has not, and will not, affect the security operations in Afghanistan.
"Regarding the mood of our troops and the pace of operations there is absolutely no change whatsoever. Our troops understand they must continue partnering with the Afghan national security forces to push the fight in the south, that there is no pause in our efforts to protect the Afghan people," said Blotz.
But a new report is casting doubt on U.S. efforts to partner with Afghan forces to improve security. A U.S. special inspector general report says the capability of many Afghan security forces has been overestimated for the past five years because the United States has relied on a faulty rating system.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan: Eyes Wide Shut
President Obama's ambivalence toward the war is energizing our enemies and undermining our allies.
Wall Street Journal Bret Stephens JUNE 29, 2010
With a wink of its left eye, the Obama administration tells its liberal base that a year from now the U.S. will be heading for a quick Afghan exit. "Everyone knows there's a firm date," insists White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
With a wink of its right, the administration tells Afghanistan, Pakistan, NATO allies and its own military leadership that the July 2011 date is effectively meaningless. The notion that a major drawdown will begin next year "absolutely has not been decided," says Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The winks are simultaneous. When it comes to Barack Obama's "war of necessity," pretty much everyone thinks he's blinked.
Not the least of the ironies of the president's decision to sack Stanley McChrystal in favor of David Petraeus is that, in the name of asserting civilian control over the military, the president has a commander in Afghanistan whom he cannot realistically fire. It isn't just that St. Dave has, for the GOP, the potential political potency of Dwight Eisenhower. It's that the president needs the general's credibility in Afghanistan because he has so little of his own.
Wars are contests of wills. If our efforts in Afghanistan have an increasingly ghostly quality—visible to the naked eye but incapable of achieving effects in the physical world—it has more to do with a widespread perception that we just aren't prepared to do what it takes to win than it does with the particulars of counterinsurgency strategy or its execution. Gen. Petraeus won in Iraq because George W. Bush had his back and the people of Iraq, friend as well as foe, knew it.
By contrast, the fact that we have been unable to secure the small city of Marja, much less take on the larger job of Kandahar, is because nobody—right down to the village folk whom we are so sedulously courting with good deeds and restrictive rules of engagement—believes that Barack Obama believes in his own war. The vacuum in credibility begets the vacuum in power.
On Friday, the New York Times reported that Pakistan is seeking to expand its influence in Afghanistan. "Coupled with their strategic interests," noted the Times, "the Pakistanis say they have chosen this juncture to open talks with [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai because, even before the controversy with Gen. McChrystal, they sensed uncertainty—'a lack of fire in the belly,' said one Pakistani—within the Obama administration over the Afghan fight."
The Times followed up the next day with a story about the effects of the Af-Pak rapprochement on Afghanistan's minorities: "'Karzai is giving Afghanistan back to the Taliban, and he is opening up the old schisms,' said Rehman Oghly, an Uzbek member of Parliament and once a member of an anti-Taliban militia. 'If he wants to bring in the Taliban, and they begin to use force, then we will go back to civil war and Afghanistan will be split.'"
Well, that would be bad, just as it would be bad if Pakistan reasserted itself in Afghanistan via its sometime "asset" in the so-called Haqqani network, which more recently has been an ally of al Qaeda but may yet want a seat in a future Afghan cabinet. But this is what inevitably flows when the U.S. can set no more ambitious a military goal for itself than the promise, as the president put it last week, "to break the Taliban's momentum." How about breaking the Taliban itself?
Perhaps the job-secure Gen. Petraeus could press the administration to stop talking about withdrawal schedules and start using the word "victory" with frequency and conviction. Or perhaps the general could, in his usual politic way, speak that way himself. Doing so would reassure our remaining Afghan friends and deter importuning outsiders. It might steady the unsteady Mr. Karzai. Above all, it would persuade the Afghans whose support we need that they won't soon find themselves on the wrong end of a Taliban firing squad for having once sided with us.
But against these arguments must be weighed the president's personal determination to end this war sooner rather than later. As Newsweek's Jonathan Alter describes the president's mind when he decided on an Afghan surge last fall, "this would not be a five- to seven-year nation-building commitment," and July 2011 would mark the "beginning of a real—not a token—withdrawal." The president, Mr. Alter reports, told his war council that "I don't want to be going to Walter Reed for another eight years."
No president would. Then again, few presidents would wage a war they weren't fully committed to winning. This is where Mr. Obama finds himself now: seeking to calibrate some notional measure of "success"—how much Afghan "capacity" built; how much political "reconciliation" achieved, and so on—even as the rest of the world, the Taliban included, calls his bluff.
Gen. Petraeus will do what he can to turn things around, though he must know that every appearance of success will whet the administration's appetite for a precipitous withdrawal. Maybe he can persuade the White House that this is a war without shortcuts, one that the U.S. has no choice but to win. Failing that, a president's ambivalence will soon become a general's nightmare. And that will be a tragedy for two countries.
Write to bstephens@wsj.com
Back to Top
Back to Top
Damning report on state of Afghan security forces
June 29, 2010 BBC News
The US and its partners have no effective way of monitoring how successfully Afghan forces operate on their own, US auditors say.
Handing over security is key to US strategy and the report jars with previous upbeat assessments.
Only 23% of Afghan soldiers and 12% of police can work unsupervised, the report says.
Auditors also found widespread absenteeism, corruption, drug abuse and illiteracy among Afghan forces.
The report by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (Sigar), Arnold Fields, is the first objective look at the system the military has used for the past five years to rate the effectiveness of Afghan forces.
The rating system has now been scrapped.
'Thieving officers'
Among Sigar's findings is that, as of March 2010, 12% of the army and 17% of the police were absent without leave.
The National Civil Order Force, considered the police's "premier force", lost nearly three-quarters of its men inside a year.
Reasons given for "attrition" were insurgent action and "disappointment over pay levels".
Even these figures may understate the scale of the problem facing Afghan security forces, the BBC's Quentin Sommerville reports from Kabul.
In one northern province, a police force which had received a top rating had, in fact, disintegrated when the area was overrun by insurgents.
Inspectors were unable to visit because it was too dangerous.
The report found that corruption was holding back improvements in police training and morale.
Senior officers had, it said, been stealing pay and fuel, and selling on weapons. Some police stations lacked running water or electricity.
The head of US training, William Cauldwell, said the report was inaccurate, outdated and damaging.
However, the senior US commander in Afghanistan, Lt Gen David Rodriguez, said the general picture painted by the report and its specifics were correct.
The US has spent some $27bn (£18bn) on training Afghan security forces over the past eight years.
Back to Top
Back to Top
With Command Shift in Afghanistan, Talk Turns to Withdrawal
New York Times By PETER BAKER June 28, 2010
WASHINGTON - When he ordered 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan last December, President Obama stressed that they would not stay forever. “After 18 months,” he said, “our troops will begin to come home.”
Last weekend, though, he scorned the “obsession around this whole issue of when do we leave,” saying he was focused on making sure the troops were successful. The July 2011 deadline he set was intended to “begin a process of transition,” he said, but “that doesn’t mean we suddenly turn off the lights and let the door close behind us.”
As he hands command of the war to Gen. David H. Petraeus, Mr. Obama is trying to define what his timeline means — but not too much. Even as developments in Afghanistan have made meeting the deadline all the more daunting, Mr. Obama has sent multiple signals to multiple audiences, sticking by his commitment to begin pulling out while insisting that it does not mean simply walking away.
But if he is maintaining maximum flexibility with deliberate ambiguity, the conflicting emphasis has left many wondering just what will happen next summer. The question dominated General Petraeus’s last appearance on Capitol Hill two weeks ago when he testified as head of the United States Central Command overseeing the region. And it may flavor his return on Tuesday to the Senate Armed Services Committee as it moves to confirm his new assignment as commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Military officers and intelligence officials bristle at the deadline, because they said it had convinced many Afghans that Americans would not be around for the long term, making them less willing to defy the Taliban. The president’s Democratic allies in Congress, on the other hand, are pressing him to make sure that July 2011 begins a “serious drawdown,” as Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, put it.
The issue has taken prominence not just because of Mr. Obama’s appointment of General Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, but because House leaders want to pass a war spending measure before leaving town for the Fourth of July break. Some liberal lawmakers hope to use the bill to force conditions for scaling back the American military commitment.
The White House said Monday that the July 2011 deadline was intentionally flexible, but had had some desired effect. “We want the Afghans to understand that we’re going to be expecting more out of them, so to the extent that it conveys a sense of urgency, that’s an important message,” said Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser.
At the same time, he noted that the president had not decided how quickly the drawdown would take place. “There’s clearly going to be an enduring commitment to Afghanistan past 2011, whatever the slope,” he said.
But that part of the message has not transmitted to many in the rural reaches of Afghanistan, where American troops regularly encounter Afghans who assume they are all leaving next year.
In the village of Abdul Ghayas in Helmand Province last month, for example, a local resident exasperated two Marines when he told them that he was nervous about helping with their plans for a new school out of fear that the Taliban would retaliate after the Americans went home next year.
“That’s why they won’t work with us,” Cpl. Lisa Gardner, one of the Marines, told a reporter traveling with the unit. “They say you’ll leave in 2011 and the Taliban will chop their heads off. It’s so frustrating.”
Later in the day, Corporal Gardner and the other Marine, Cpl. Diana Amaya, reported the villager’s reaction back at the base. Lance Cpl. Caleb Quessenberry advised them on how to deal with similar comments in the future. “Roll it off as, ‘That’s what somebody’s saying,’ ” he told them. “As far as we know, we’re here.”
A senior American intelligence official said the Taliban had effectively used the deadline to their advantage. He added that the deadline had encouraged Pakistani security services to “hedge their bets” and continue supporting militant groups like the Haqqani network.
“They’ve been burned and they’ve seen this movie before,” the official said, noting the American disengagement after the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1990s. Should the war deteriorate, he added, Pakistani leaders are thinking, “We don’t want Haqqani turning around and coming this way.”
Such factors have animated the debate in Washington. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan was defying Washington because of the deadline.
“A lot of the behavior that Karzai is displaying, a lot of the things that are going on right now are a direct result of the president’s commitment to beginning withdrawal,” he said on “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
On the other side of the spectrum, Ms. Pelosi told the Huffington Post that there must be a “serious drawdown” next summer and that she was not sure how many Democrats will vote for war spending without enshrining such policy into law. “I don’t know how many votes there are in the caucus, even condition-based, for the war, hands down,” she said.
The last time General Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill, he told the House Armed Services Committee that he would not “make too much out of that” deadline because the president had not decided the pace of a withdrawal. Before the Senate committee, he endorsed the deadline, but paused when Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and the Armed Services Committee chairman, asked if it reflected his best military judgment.
“In a perfect world, Mr. Chairman, we have to be very careful with deadlines,” General Petraeus said, adding that “we are assuming” conditions will permit it. When Mr. Levin asked if that was “a qualified yes,” General Petraeus agreed.
Mr. Levin said Monday that General Petraeus would be pressed again on Tuesday: “He needs to be again on record on that issue, and to say why he agrees with the policy, because particularly on the Republican side there are people who disagree with that.”
Elisabeth Bumiller and Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Karzai officials seen hindering bribery probes
The Washington Post By Greg Miller and Ernesto Londoño 28/06/2010
Top officials in President Hamid Karzai's government have repeatedly derailed corruption investigations of politically connected Afghans, according to U.S. officials who have provided Afghanistan's authorities with wiretapping technology and other assistance in efforts to crack down on endemic graft.
In recent months, the U.S. officials said, Afghan prosecutors and investigators have been ordered to cross names off case files, prevent senior officials from being placed under arrest and disregard evidence against executives of a major financial firm suspected of helping the nation's elite move millions of dollars overseas.
As a result, U.S. advisers sent to Kabul by the Justice Department, the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration have come to see Afghanistan's corruption problem in increasingly stark terms.
"Above a certain level, people are being very well protected," said a senior U.S. official involved in the investigations.
Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar denied investigations had been derailed. "There is no case, no instance, in which the palace or anyone from the palace has interfered with a case," he said.
Afghanistan is awash in international aid and regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Indeed, even as the United States and its allies pour money in, U.S. officials estimate that as much as $1 billion a year is flowing out as part of a massive cash exodus. The money, as first reported in The Washington Post in February, is often carried out in full view of customs officials at Kabul's airport, where such transfers are legal as long as they are declared. Officials suspect much of the cash is going to the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai, where elite Afghans, including Karzai's older brother, have villas.
For the Obama administration, the ability of Afghan investigators to crack down on corruption is crucial. If American voters see Karzai's government as hopelessly corrupt, public support for the war could plunge. Corruption also fuels the Taliban insurgency and complicates efforts to persuade ordinary Afghans to side with leaders in Kabul.
Afghanistan's attorney general, Mohammed Ishaq Aloko, was seen as a potential ally against corruption when he took the job two years ago. Some investigations have ended in convictions. But U.S. officials said that Aloko, a native of Kandahar province who studied law in Germany, has repeatedly impeded prosecutions of suspects with political ties.
In meetings with U.S. Justice Department officials, Aloko has seemed almost apologetic and acknowledged coming under pressure from Karzai as well as members of parliament, officials said. On one occasion, according to a U.S. official, Aloko told his American counterparts, "I'm doing this because that is what the president tells me I have to do."
The official, like others quoted in this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive investigations.
Aloko referred questions to his deputy, Rahmatullah Nazari, who blamed resource constraints for his office's failure to win more corruption convictions. "There isn't any kind of pressure on the attorney general's office," Nazari said. "If anyone caves to pressure, they should go to prison."
But U.S. officials point to multiple instances of interference. The most prominent example to surface publicly involves Afghanistan's former minister of Islamic affairs, who fled the country this year as prosecutors were preparing to charge him with extorting millions of dollars from companies seeking contracts to take pilgrims to the Muslim holy land, a trip known as the hajj.
A travel ban was issued to block the former minister, Mohammad Siddiq Chakari, from leaving. But U.S. officials said Chakari escaped after showing airport security officials a letter he obtained from Aloko's office saying he had cooperated in the case and was not to be detained. Nazari said Chakari had not been convicted of a crime and, therefore, could not be prevented from leaving.
Chakari, who is now in London, has repeatedly maintained his innocence. Because there is no extradition treaty between Afghanistan and Britain, U.S. officials said it is unlikely that he will ever stand trial. Even so, some regard his departure as a moral victory.
"The very fact that the former minister of the hajj had to leave the country is in a way a remarkable achievement," said Steve Kraft, director of Afghanistan and Pakistan programs for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement. "We would rather see him in jail here. But in the old days, they would have scoffed" at the idea of pursuing such a probe, he added.
Combined efforts
Critics say Karzai's initiatives are meant to appease the international community. "It's all a show," lawmaker Sayed Rahman said, noting that no senior government official has been imprisoned on corruption charges.
Over the past year, U.S. officials said, Afghan investigators have assembled evidence against three Karzai-appointed provincial governors accused of embezzlement or bribery. All three cases have been blocked. The interference has persisted, officials said, despite Karzai's pledge in November during his second inaugural address to make fighting corruption a focus of his new term.
The extent of the interference has become evident, officials said, in large part because of improvements in Afghan authorities' ability to pursue corruption cases.
Over the past two years, U.S. agencies have allied with their Afghan counterparts to create elite investigative and prosecutorial teams. Afghan applicants undergo polygraph tests in which they are asked whether they have taken bribes. Some have been sent to U.S. facilities, including the DEA academy in Quantico, to be trained.
Still, Karzai's administration has reportedly taken steps to limit the independence of these units. The U.S. official said that Aloko recently created a three-member commission to "review" the units' cases and that it has removed names of politically connected Afghans from prosecutors' files.
Nazari, Aloko's deputy, said that if others know of a list of names that have been removed, "they should bring it to us."
The long-term aim of the anti-corruption units, Kraft said, is to assemble cases in which the evidence is "so profound and well-known that the ability to get people off the hook will no longer be there."
Evidence from wiretaps
A key capability is a U.S.-provided eavesdropping system that allows Afghan investigators to intercept cellphone calls in the most populous parts of the country.
The wiretaps, approved by Afghan judges, have yielded key evidence in a growing list of embezzlement and bribery cases. U.S. officials said the wiretaps have also caught senior officials and members of parliament discussing efforts to derail certain cases.
In January, Afghan authorities raided the offices of New Ansari, a firm that has served as Afghanistan's primary link to the "hawala" money exchange system. This informal system for transferring cash overseas makes electronic tracking difficult. A second U.S. official familiar with the investigation said the firm is suspected of laundering drug money, delivering funds to insurgents and helping Afghan officials transfer tens of millions of dollars to accounts abroad.
After the raid, wiretaps picked up conversations indicating that there had been a frantic meeting involving Karzai aides at the presidential palace. U.S. officials said members of Karzai's administration as well as members of parliament held subsequent meetings with Aloko, pressuring him to ensure that certain New Ansari executives not be charged.
Among those protected was Haji Muhammad Rafi Azimi, deputy chairman of Afghan United Bank, a subsidiary of New Ansari, U.S. officials said. On a wiretap recording, Azimi is heard discussing bribes paid to Chakari. The recorded conversations were played in open court in the trial of a lower-ranking official in the Religious Affairs Ministry, Mohammed Noor.
"It's clear to everyone involved he should be indicted and charged," a U.S. official said of Azimi. But, the official said, Azimi is "a businessman who knows a great deal about the finances of government officials."
A second U.S. official familiar with the case concurred. "What happened is a large group of very powerful people . . . went to the attorney general and told him to stand down," the official said.
Phone calls and e-mails to Azimi did not elicit any responses. Guards outside New Ansari's office in Kabul told a reporter that the site had been closed for months. They said they did not know why they were still getting paid to guard it.
Noor, a civil servant, was sentenced to 15 years in prison after being convicted in May of collecting bribe money for Chakari in Saudi Arabia and bringing it to Afghanistan. Two others in the case are awaiting trial. Azimi remains in his position at Afghan United Bank.
Aloko has announced that his office is investigating five current and former ministers, reportedly including Mohammad Ibrahim Adel, the mines minister, accused by U.S. officials of taking a $30 million bribe from a Chinese firm. Adel stepped down, but neither he nor any other minister -- besides Chakari -- has been charged.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Furious US lawmaker blocks Afghan aid
By Shaun Tandon June 28, 2010
(AFP) – WASHINGTON — A senior US lawmaker has angrily blocked billions of dollars in aid to Afghanistan, vowing not to give "one more dime" until Afghan President Hamid Karzai acts against corruption.
Representative Nita Lowey, who sits on the powerful committee in charge of the budget, said she would hold hearings into allegations that top Afghan officials flew suitcases full of cash from US aid to foreign safe havens.
"I do not intend to appropriate one more dime for assistance to Afghanistan until I have confidence that US taxpayer money is not being abused to line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords and terrorists," she said.
An aide to Lowey said that President Barack Obama's administration requested 3.9 billion dollars in aid for Afghanistan in the 2011 fiscal year, which starts in October.
Lowey, a member of Obama's Democratic Party from New York, said she would refuse to consider any assistance for Afghanistan other than "life-saving humanitarian aid" when her subcommittee meets on the budget on Wednesday.
"Too many Americans are suffering in this economy for us to put their hard-earned tax dollars into the hands of criminals overseas," Lowey said in a statement.
"We will not commit billions more in taxpayer money for Afghanistan until there are assurances that such funds will be used for their intended purposes and that the government of Afghanistan is willing and able to root out corruption within its ranks," she said.
Lowey heads the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations. Her decision would not affect military appropriations, which are handled by a separate subcommittee.
Lowey was responding to a report in The Wall Street Journal that US investigators suspect that Afghan officials stuffed suitcases full of cash siphoned from Western aid projects and flew them out of Kabul airport.
The report said more than three billion dollars has been legally declared to leave Kabul International Airport over the past three years, a figure so large for such a poor country that it triggered concerns.
Separately, The Washington Post ran a front-page story Monday saying that top officials in Karzai's government have often blocked corruption investigations.
Transparency International, a watchdog, has ranked Afghanistan as the world's most corrupt nation -- worse even than Somalia which has no effective government.
After taking office last year, the Obama administration pressed Karzai on allegations of corruption and vote-rigging. But it has become more discreet with its concerns after the Afghan leader lashed out at the United States.
Karzai in May visited Washington and told concerned lawmakers that Afghanistan was fighting against corruption but that "you don't see the results here in America" as the effort would take years.
The aid cutoff comes as US public support dwindles for the nearly eight-year war in Afghanistan. Obama last week sacked the Afghan war commander, General Stanley McChrystal, after an article showed his disdain for civilian leaders.
A Newsweek poll taken after McChrystal's dismissal found that half of Americans approved of Obama's decision but that a majority now disapproved of the president's handling of the war.
Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan who heads the Armed Services Committee, said Monday that public support would hinge on the operation planned later this year to take Kandahar, the bastion of the Taliban.
Aid has been a key component of Obama's strategy in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the administration believing that civilian efforts are crucial to securing peace in areas after Taliban fighters are routed.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking House Democrat, said he expected a "pretty vigorous" on Afghanistan.
"Not only is it not helpful but it's not warranted to invest money if we are not convinced that it will be spent in a way that will be positive and not simply enrich those who may or may not be in power at any given time," Hoyer said.
Back to Top
Back to Top
UN vehicle attacked in Afghan capital
June 29, 2010 Press TV
Militants armed with heavy weapons have attacked a UN vehicle in Kabul's diplomatic area amid rising violence in war-weary Afghanistan.
The attack took place in Wazir Akbar Khan district close to an intersection near the US Embassy and an American military base, a Press TV correspondent reported on Tuesday.
Initial reports indicate that at least one staff member was killed in the attack.
The UN says the incidents will not prevent the organization from its mission in the troubled region, where militancy has skyrocketed over the past few months.
The militants have accused the organization of overseeing US interests in the volatile region.
Six UN staffers were killed and several others were also wounded in an attack on a UN compound last year in Kabul.
The fresh instance of violence comes amid rising casualties of foreign troops in the country.
This June was the deadliest month for foreign forces stationed in Afghanistan with the death toll surpassing the 100 mark.
The UN-backed US-led invasion of Afghanistan was launched with the official objective of curbing militancy and bringing peace and stability to the country. Nine years on, however, US and Afghan officials admit the country remains unstable as civilians continue to pay the heaviest price.
The rising casualties have sparked huge anger among the public in the countries allied with the US in Afghanistan.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Report faults U.S. for being too optimistic about Afghan security capabilities
The Washington Post By Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The U.S. military has systematically overstated or failed to adequately measure the capabilities of Afghan security forces, whose performance is key to the Obama administration's exit strategy for the war, according to a new government audit.
Efforts to prepare and equip Afghan forces are also plagued by a shortage of U.S.-led coalition trainers and mentors and a corrupt and inadequate Afghan logistics system, the report by the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction said.
The coalition did not challenge the findings and acknowledged significant ongoing problems. But it said the report, released Monday, was outdated and failed to take sufficient account of recent improvements in the training program.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, whom President Obama nominated last week to head U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is likely to face questions about the effort to train Afghan security forces at a confirmation hearing Tuesday. Under the administration's plan, the U.S.-led coalition will begin transferring control of some areas to Afghan security forces beginning in July 2011.
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters Monday that plans for coalition forces to outnumber their Afghan counterparts in an upcoming offensive in Kandahar were "totally unacceptable."
"It runs exactly contrary to what needs to be done in terms of the success of this mission, to put Afghans more in front," Levin said. "What's going on? Why is that true? Why is that still the case?"
According to the Kandahar plan presented to NATO leaders in Brussels this month by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who was ousted as coalition commander by Obama last week, the operation will include 11,850 mostly American foreign troops and 8,500 Afghan military and police personnel.
Levin said he would also press Petraeus on his support for the July 2011 U.S. withdrawals. At a recent hearing, Petraeus hesitated when asked to voice his support for the deadline, which many in the military oppose, then emphasized that it would mark the beginning of a transition to Afghan control that would have a pace and scope that would depend on "conditions on the ground."
Levin and other Democrats have pressed the administration for a commitment to speed up the turnover of control to Afghan forces. But senior Republicans have charged that the deadline, set by Obama when he announced a new strategy and a surge in U.S. forces to Afghanistan last December, only encouraged Taliban insurgents to wait for a U.S. departure.
Lawmakers are also expected to ask Petraeus whether he plans to alter McChrystal's rules of engagement, including restrictions on coalition air attacks and ground operations, which some troops have said endanger them and put them at a disadvantage in fighting the Taliban. But the rules, designed to avoid civilian casualties, are drawn directly from the U.S. Army's counterinsurgency manual, which Petraeus authored.
Levin said that most Democrats still support the war strategy but warned of "the beginnings of a fraying of that support."
Obama's strategy called for a surge in U.S. forces to take momentum from the Taliban and a doubling of the size of trained Afghan army and police forces that would eventually take over. The forces, though, remain in poor shape, with high rates of desertion, illiteracy and drug abuse.
The overall coalition plan calls for 2,325 trainers, of which only 846 are on the ground, with 660 additional pledged. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has diverted about 800 U.S. troops to temporarily bridge the gap.
The report's principal focus is the rating system used since 2005 to measure the extent to which individual Afghan security units are capable of fighting on their own. According to U.S. figures at the end of March, only 23 percent of the Afghan army and 12 percent of the police drew top ratings.
The system, which counted the quantity of troops and equipment rather than quality of effort, was deeply flawed, the report said, and the number of capable units was probably lower. In one top-rated police district, it noted, 53 officers had been authorized and 23 had been trained, but only six officers were found to be present. Another district had 10 vehicles provided by the U.S. government, but only three drivers.
In a written response to the report, Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the training commander, said the findings were "not only inaccurate" because they relied on outdated data but "potentially damaging." The United States has spent $27 billion, more than half of all reconstruction dollars, on training and equipping Afghan forces.
U.S. Army Col. John Ferrari, under Caldwell's command, agreed that the rating system was not "optimal" and said that it had been replaced this spring with a more subjective, qualitative assessment program, along with vastly expanded training and mentoring. The military has not yet provided assessments under the new system.
Rather than sending Afghan troops directly into combat -- many of them for the first time -- all soldiers and police are trained before being sent to the battlefield with coalition forces at their sides, Ferrari said in a telephone interview.
"What you want to do over a period of time is to stay with that unit," Ferrari said. "And then maybe you take the training wheels off . . . and back off a bit and see how it does. Some are going to backslide, and then you grab it back again for a couple of times until the unit can hold that readiness level."
Staff writer Craig Whitlock contributed to this report.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Pakistan May Transfer Captured Taliban Commander To Afghanistan
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty June 29, 2010
A spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai says Pakistan may extradite a captured top Taliban commander to Afghanistan, RFE/RL's Radio Mashaal reports.
Spokesman Hamid Elmi said that Afghan and Pakistani officials have discussed the fate of the commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, and that Pakistani authorities might hand him over to Afghanistan.
"Our interior minister and [the Pakistani] interior minister have had exclusive talks about this issue. They are ready to solve this issue and hand [Baradar] over to Afghanistan. They are working on solving the legal hurdles that could come in to place," Elmi told Radio Mashaal.
Pakistan's army chief, General Ashfaq Kiani, is in Afghanistan today for discussions with Karzai and other top Afghan officials. Elmi would not confirm whether Baradar’s fate would be discussed in Kiani's meeting with Karzai.
Mullah Baradar is the former military leader of the Taliban. He was captured in February in Karachi by a joint Pakistani-American operation.
At the time, Baradar's arrest was seen in the region as a sign Pakistan had turned against the Afghan Taliban, who were said to have previously enjoyed tacit Pakistani support.
Elmi told Radio Mashaal that Afghan officials are seeking an agreement with Pakistan so that all Taliban arrested in Pakistan could be handed over to Afghanistan.
A week after Baradar's arrest, the Afghan Interior Ministry said Pakistan had agreed to hand him over to Afghan officials, but Pakistani judges at Lahore's high court blocked the transfer.
At the time of his arrest, Baradar was said to be the second most important Taliban leader after Mullah Omar, the Taliban founder who is thought to have close ties to Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Back to Top
Back to Top
What would reconciliation look like for the U.S. and Taliban?
The Washington Post By David Ignatius Tuesday, June 29, 2010
KABUL - Even as the United States and the Taliban continue to pound each other on the battlefield, the two adversaries appear to be conducting parallel internal debates about what an eventual political reconciliation might involve.
Each side wants to bargain from a position of maximum strength, and for the foreseeable future that means trying to inflict maximum pain. Each seems to be betting that the staying power of the other is limited -- by domestic politics, regional dynamics and the cost of the conflict in money and blood. The main advantage of the Taliban, arguably, is that its fighters are a permanent part of the landscape.
U.S. military commanders here see signs that their aggressive "capture or kill" operations have rocked the Taliban -- and pushed some of the insurgents to consider negotiations with President Hamid Karzai. This Special Forces campaign involves 125 to 150 operations each month, a senior military official here said Saturday, adding that in the past four months, 525 insurgents had been detained or killed, including 130 who are district commanders or higher.
"The argument within the Taliban is about resolving the conflict," says the military official, citing prisoner interrogations and other intelligence. "They want to figure out what the conditions would be," he explained, including: "How do we do it? Will we be part of the [Afghan] government? Will we fear for our lives?"
Taliban prisoners have told U.S. interrogators that this pounding in Afghanistan -- coupled with attacks by Predator drones on their havens in Pakistan -- has taken a psychological toll. According to the senior military official, lower-level fighters complain, "Hey, we're doing all the dying out here," and ask their commanders, "How much longer can we put up with this?"
But top administration officials, starting with President Obama, expressed skepticism over the weekend that Taliban leader Mohammad Omar is willing to make any serious compromises yet. CIA Director Leon Panetta cautioned Sunday on ABC's "This Week": "We have seen no evidence that they are truly interested in reconciliation." The U.S. strategy is to keep firing away, in the hope that the enemy will be more pliable by 2011, when Obama plans to begin withdrawing American troops.
The inner circle of the administration has begun its own debate about a strategy for Afghan political reconciliation. Obama has publicly supported reconciliation, but with some significant preconditions. And while he has said that this process should be "Afghan-led," the United States also wants to steer the process in the direction most favorable to its interests. ad_icon
Complicating the situation for both the United States and the Taliban are the recent discussions between Karzai and Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the Pakistani army chief. The Pakistanis would like to broker any settlement in Afghanistan. They appear to have had some success in convincing Karzai that, given Obama's July 2011 timetable to begin withdrawal, Pakistan is his most reliable long-run partner.
The Taliban has developed its own version of a "population-centric" strategy to win Afghan hearts and minds. The military official in Kabul cited intelligence reports that Omar has ordered his fighters to curb corruption, reduce civilian casualties and run more effective local courts. Taliban leaders who were unpopular or ineffective have been recalled from the battlefield, the U.S. official said.
Both the United States and the Taliban have set heavy preconditions for negotiations, which for now have stymied serious dialogue. Washington insists that Taliban fighters disarm, renounce any links with al-Qaeda and accept the human-rights provisions of the Afghan constitution. The Taliban demands the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan.
For now, those demands have produced an impasse. But some U.S. advocates of reconciliation see signs that Omar may be ready to distance the Taliban from al-Qaeda. One official cites an interview, conducted in March by Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad that appeared in Asia Times Online, in which an anonymous Taliban official describes Osama bin Laden as "just an individual" and said the United States was using him as an excuse to avoid real talks.
In the Pashtun culture, reconciliation is possible when there is a gundi, or balance of power, that conveys mutual respect and security. So far, neither the United States nor the Taliban has a reconciliation strategy that could be articulated so succinctly.
davidignatius@washpost.com
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghans Allege Civilians Killed in NATO Operation
VOA News June 28, 2010
NATO says a joint Afghan-international force killed a Taliban commander and several armed individuals in southern Afghanistan, but local villagers say the dead are all civilians.
NATO issued a statement Monday, saying the joint force returned fire in self-defense after coming under fire during a search operation at a compound in Kandahar city late Sunday. NATO said a senior Taliban facilitator, Shyster Uhstad Khan, was among those killed and that women and children were protected during the search.
But residents told reporters that eight people were killed in the raid and that they were all civilians. A villager told news agencies his brothers and father were among those killed. Kandahar police say they are investigating residents' claims.
In eastern Afghanistan, officials say eight civilians, including women and children, were killed in a roadside bombing in Ghazni province on Monday.
And the British defense ministry says small-arms fire killed a British soldier in the Nahr-e Saraj district of southern Helmand province on Sunday. June has become the deadliest month for international forces since 2001, with close to 100 NATO troops killed.
Violence has increased in Afghanistan as U.S.-led NATO forces and Afghan troops increase military efforts to clear Kandahar and surrounding areas of Taliban militants.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai is strongly denying a media report that the Afghan leader held talks with an Al-Qaida-linked Taliban leader in Kabul.
A report on Al-Jazeera television on Sunday said President Karzai met with Sirajuddin Haqqani, who heads the Haqqani network, as part of a government-initiated peace plan to end the nine-year war with Taliban insurgents.
Presidential spokesman Waheed Omar on Monday called the report "completely baseless" and said there was no truth to it.
Some information for this report was provided by AP, AFP and Reuters.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Panetta says Afghan insurgents show no real interest in reconciliation talks
The Washington Post By Peter Finn and Karen DeYoung Monday, June 28, 2010
CIA Director Leon Panetta said Sunday that U.S. officials have not seen "any firm intelligence" that insurgent groups in Afghanistan are interested in reconciliation, and he dismissed reports that a top militant leader is open to a Pakistan-brokered agreement.
"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." "My view is that . . . 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."
Panetta was responding to reports that senior Pakistani military and intelligence officials are seeking to broker a deal that would usher the network led by Sirajuddin Haqqani, a major element in the insurgency in Afghanistan and an ally of al-Qaeda, into a power-sharing arrangement in Kabul. More broadly, Panetta said none of the insurgent groups in Afghanistan has shown a real interest in talks.
The Obama administration has always maintained that the war will end with a political settlement rather than a military one. It has gradually warmed to the idea of negotiations with insurgent groups, but senior administration officials have warned Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan that Washington considers Haqqani's network off-limits. Any deal between the sides would drive a wedge between Karzai and the United States and would rehabilitate the Haqqani network, a longtime Pakistani asset.
Karzai has said that he will talk with any insurgent group about its grievances, but that any deal must include a commitment by fighters to give up arms, sever ties with al-Qaeda and respect the Afghan constitution. His aides have held inconclusive meetings, within and outside Afghanistan, with representatives of two groups loosely linked under the banner of the Afghan Taliban: the Quetta shura led by Mohammad Omar and the Hezb-i-Islami. ad_icon
On Sunday, television network al-Jazeera, citing unnamed sources, reported that Karzai recently held face-to-face talks with Haqqani, in the presence of Pakistan's army and intelligence chiefs. Karzai's office denied that, as did a Pakistani military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, who called the report "baseless and concocted with malicious intent."
Haqqani fighters, based in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal area, operate primarily in eastern Afghanistan, where their attacks against coalition forces and Afghan civilians have grown more ruthless. Haqqani's father, the founder of the network, is a former Afghan warlord who fought occupying Soviet forces with U.S. and Pakistani help in the 1980s, battled the Taliban after the Soviet departure, then joined the Taliban when it took over the country in the mid-1990s.
President Obama said Sunday it is "too early to tell" whether reintegration and reconciliation efforts will succeed. "I think that we have to view these efforts with skepticism, but also openness," he said at a news conference at the close of the Group of 20 conference in Canada.
"The Taliban is a blend of hard-core ideologues, tribal leaders, kids that basically sign up because it's the best job available to them. Not all of them are going to be thinking the same way about the Afghan government, about the future of Afghanistan," Obama said in his most extensive remarks to date about the reconciliation process. "And so we're going to have to sort through how these talks take place."
He said conversations between the Afghan and Pakistani governments were a "useful step."
The remarks by Obama and Panetta came as a suspected CIA missile strike killed three militants in North Waziristan, thought to be the location of al-Qaeda's Pakistan headquarters. Panetta said that only 50 to 100 al-Qaeda operatives remain inside Afghanistan. Without explicitly acknowledging the CIA's drone campaign, he said U.S. actions were in compliance with domestic and international law.
He acknowledged that the fight in Afghanistan has proved "harder" and "slower than I think anyone anticipated."
Panetta also warned that being a U.S. citizen was no protection for those who conspire against the United States. He had been asked about Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American-born cleric, now in Yemen, who has been linked to terrorist attacks, including the Fort Hood shootings and the bombing attempt on a Detroit-bound plane last Christmas.
"Aulaqi is a terrorist and, yes, he is a U.S. citizen, but he is first and foremost a terrorist, and we are going to treat him like a terrorist," Panetta said when asked whether Aulaqi was on an assassination list. "We don't have an assassination list, but I can tell you this: We have a terrorist list, and he's on it." Intelligence and counterterrorism officials have said Aulaqi is on a target list of terrorists who can be killed.
Staff writer Karin Brulliard in Islamabad contributed to this report.
Back to Top
Back to Top
1 killed, 4 injured as police clash with farmers in NE Afghan province
FAIZABAD, Afghanistan, June 29 (Xinhua) -- One civilian was killed and four policemen sustained injuries as farmers resisted police attempt to destroy poppy fields in northeast Badakhshan province of Afghanistan, deputy to provincial governor Shamsul Rahman Shams said Tuesday.
"A unit of counter-narcotics police went to Bamchian village in Daraim district on Monday to destroy poppy fields but the farmers resisted which triggered clash during which a local was killed and four police sustained injuries," Shams told Xinhua.
He also said that efforts are underway to arrest those behind the mishap.
Although 20 out of the country's 34 provinces have been announced poppy-free, Afghanistan still produces over 90 percent of the raw material used in manufacturing heroin in the world.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Turkey to receive injured Afghan soldiers for medical treatment
ANKARA, June 28 (Xinhua) -- Turkey will receive a total of 25 amputated and seriously wounded Afghan soldiers for medical treatment and rehabilitation on Tuesday, Turkish foreign ministry said in an official statement on Monday.
The statement said the 25 soldiers would undergo medical treatment and rehabilitation in the Turkish armed forces' medical facilities, as requested by the Afghan authorities.
Turkey's move to help the wounded soldiers get back to normal life is another example of the brotherhood and friendly relations between Turkey and Afghanistan, the statement said.
By supporting and aiding Afghanistan, Turkey aimed to contribute to establishing peace and stability in the country, the statement said, adding such kind of support would continue in the future.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan withdrawal possible in 2012: Polish defence chief
WARSAW, June 28 (Xinhua) -- Polish Defence Minister Bogdan Klich on Monday said that a withdrawal of Polish troops from Afghanistan is possible to the end of 2012.
"There is no Pole who would not back the conclusion of the Afghan mission in proper time," said Klich in Zielona Gora, western Poland.
The minister recalled that the 2009 strategy prepared by the Defence and Foreign Ministries foresees that the conclusion of the stationing of Polish soldiers in Afghanistan is to take place in 2013.
"The Ghanzi province, for which we are responsible, will become the world centre of Islamic culture in 2013. Politically it is necessary that the Afghans themselves take full control over the province in 2013. Now, we are mulling technical possibilities of acceleration of this process by a year or so that the Polish mission could end to the end of 2012," Klich said, quoted by the PAP news agency.
He added that Polish soldiers now stationed in Afghanistan is a sufficient force "to efficiently combat Taliban aggression."
Poland has some 2,600 troops stationed in Afghan province of Ghanzi, part of the NATO-led multinational peacekeeping force International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
So far 19 Polish soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.
Back to Top
Back to Top
The Afghan women jailed for 'bad character'
By Lyse Doucet BBC Newsnight June 29, 2010
Meet Sorarya and you meet "attitude".
It has something to do with the way she wears her red tunic and trousers, her short cropped black leather jacket, and the way she chews gum and rolls her eyes.
"What are you here for?" I ask as we sit in a makeshift beauty parlour, surrounded by a group of Afghan women in less flamboyant attire.
"Should I tell her?" she asks the other women with a mischievous grin.
"Bad character," she says after a moment's hesitation. She suppresses a giggle then doubles over with laughter. Everyone giggles with her.
Sorarya doesn't explain what that means. But almost every woman in this room has been accused of "bad character" of one kind or another.
Missing school
We are sitting in Badam Bagh, or Almond Garden, Afghanistan's only prison for women in the capital Kabul.
The prison is a window on a world where, outside these walls, women are constantly judged against a standard that makes many of their stories difficult to fathom.
Sixteen-year-old Sabera, with a pretty yellow head scarf, frets that she is missing school.
"I was about to get engaged, and the boy came to ask me himself, before sending his parents. A lady in our neighbourhood saw us, and called the police," she explains.
She was sentenced to three years but, in an act of mercy, it was shortened to 18 months.
Fellow inmate Aziza was accused of running away from her husband. She says she was acquitted two months ago, but still languishes in prison.
A senior official in Afghanistan's Ministry for Women's Affairs told a recent UN workshop that about half of Afghanistan's 476 women prisoners were detained for "moral crimes".
That includes everything from running away from home, refusing to marry, marrying without their family's wishes, and "attempted adultery".
"In many cases women run away because they can't bear the domestic violence and then they are picked up and taken into custody for a long time," explains Nader Nadery, a commissioner at Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission.
'What's my crime?'
The legal system further tips the scales of justice.
"Running away is not defined in any penal code," says Mr Nadery. "If there is no provision in law, they refer to Islamic Sharia law and this gives them an open hand."
Mastura is a waif of a woman, 19 years old, and accused of adultery by her husband.
"I was three months pregnant, and he said the child wasn't his and he kicked me out of our house," she says, cradling her infant son as she perches on the edge of a metal bed in her communal cell.
"My mother lodged a complaint against him but the government locked me up."
All the women in her cell, from teenagers to an 80-year-old woman veiled in black, listen quietly as she tells us her story. But they must know it by now.
"Every time I think about it, I cry, and I say to myself, 'What crime have I committed that I should be in prison?'" wails Mastura. She appeals to President Hamid Karzai to allow all the women to go home.
Mastura named her son Izzatullah, which means "God's honour". For an alleged crime linked to his mother's "honour", he's been born a prisoner.
About 40 other young children also share their mother's fate, living in Badam Bagh.
They sit on tiny plastic chairs watching television in a room filled with stuffed toys, and bright colours.
It could be a kindergarten anywhere - except the toddlers are minded by a woman who has been convicted of murdering her stepson. She insists she is innocent.
Prison authorities say children are taken away to a boarding school after the age of five.
Handicraft classes
Badam Bagh, home to 147 women and children, was opened two years ago and markedly improved prison conditions for women.
They used to be held at Afghanistan's most notorious jail, Pul-e-Charki, which now has some 5,000 men.
A separate facility was built, helped by foreign aid, after concern grew about women's conditions. An Afghan parliamentary report had highlighted cases of women being raped inside prison walls.
The new centre, a three-storey white building, is bright and clean, and women move freely between their cells and communal areas. Handicrafts allow them to earn some money, and computer classes teach new skills.
"Abuse and arbitrary detention is less widespread but there is still a concern about inadequate delivery of justice," says Mr Nadery.
"I know the reality of life for Afghan women," says Badam Bagh's no-nonsense prison director, Zarafshana. Unusual for an Afghan woman, she wears a business suit and no headscarf.
"If these women were treated with justice, I don't think 50% of them would be in here. They are here because of problems in the family or personal vendettas."
As we sit in a glassed in room with Zarafshana, we see Sorarya strutting down the corridor.
She told us she would be released today. But when we leave she is still waiting for clearance to re-join the world outside.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan Taliban threatens mining companies: monitor
June 28, 2010
(AFP) – WASHINGTON — The Taliban in Afghanistan has threatened foreign companies hoping to extract newly-disclosed mineral wealth in the poverty-wracked country, a group monitoring its communications reported Monday.
Claiming the government of President Hamid Karzai is illegitimate and does not represent the Afghan people, the Taliban said the administration has no right to issue minerals contracts.
Any mining company working in Afghanistan will become a target and the government "will have no opportunity when it comes to providing security for those companies' workers and staff," according to US-based monitoring group SITE.
The Taliban further promises that "any party which enters into contract to extract natural minerals and which signs a deal with the corrupt administration, is renounced and is and will be treated as an 'apostate entity' by the Islamic emirate and the Afghan people."
The mineral wealth of Afghanistan has remained largely unexploited because the country has been mired in conflict for three decades and is today embroiled in an insurgency by Islamist militants led by the Taliban.
But the government has said the findings of a recently completed US geological survey could transform Afghanistan from one of the world's most impoverished nations to one of the richest, with up to three trillion dollars in mineral wealth.
Current minister of mines Wahidullah Shahrani on Friday promised total transparency in the awarding of contracts to exploit the country's mineral wealth during a trip to London to woo foreign investment.
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).