Rebuild Afghanistan

How safe Afghanistan is?

2011-07-27T03:48:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan is passing through its critical times after the completion of the first phase of transition of security responsibilities to Afghan National Security Forces. There is no doubt the Afghans will never back from taking over their civic duties; however, let's do not forget that the eluding enemy is pursuant to bring the country down to its knees by killing its political, economical, military and internationally known personalities, whom are national assets of Afghanistan.

Security Transition to Afghan National Security Forces

2011-06-27T12:43:00.000-07:00

A comparison of the facts on the ground, and opinions in the political circles

NATO wants to give Lashkar Gah - the capital of the volatile Helmand province - over to the Afghans to handle security from July onward. But allegations of police brutality, Taliban prevalence and violence abound. Is this really the Afghanistan we want to leave behind. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh reports.

Afghan refugees double in 2011

2011-06-25T22:00:00.000-07:00

The accusation against Afghan Local Police might be baseless, but the issue is bigger than it seems. Afghanistan's on the verge of being abandoned; and the dire consequences are well foreseen by no one, better than Afghans. Those fleeing the country understands that Taliban, and other terrorists, if given chance to re-rule the country and nation, will not hesitate to launch their onslaught on ordinary Afghans. Current negotiations with Taliban absolutely pose a wider threat to the entire 10 years achievement.

Bringing Taliban, and other extremely dangerous forces back into power will jeopardize all political, economical, and infrastructural gains in Afghanistan. It will undermine the wishes and dreams of millions of Afghans.

Question is, either by abandoning Afghanistan, or bringing Taliban, who, and what will motivate these millions of refugees to return to their country?

2011-06-08T23:30:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan is heading to the right direction. Economy, national infrastructure, and national defense sectors are heading to a competitive level. If the tends of development and progress continue to the advance in its present speed, Afghanistan will achieve it is minimum goals of self-reliance and self sufficiency by a very near future.

Corruption exacerbates the impact of poverty in Afghanistan

2011-06-01T03:12:00.000-07:00

Poverty in Afghanistan is mounted to the sky. Question is where did billions of dollar donated for betterment of the ordinary Afghans' lives go. Not only that donation money disappeared from sight of international donating sights, but prominent national and international Afghan banks were brought to the verge of collapse by the corruption circles within the government and outside of the government of Afghanistan. Question is: Till when will this continue? why global donating community turn their blind eyes to these known corrupt leaders, who are poisoned to ruin these innocent futures, and exacerbate the impact of poverty in Afghanistan.

Female Police in Afghanistan

2011-05-23T04:22:00.000-07:00

In todays geopolitical turbulence regarding Afghanistan, due to the importance of international commitment to Afghanistan the balance negative thoughts about the war in Afghanistan taking it is tool in many ways. However, what media do not pay that much attention on the ground the progress achieved by Afghans its international allies in field of security training and advancement. Easily if one compare today's Afghanistan to back 10 years, one will convincingly resign to a satisfied position about the brilliant progress achieved so far.

Pakistan, still save haven of terrorists

2011-05-22T03:43:00.001-07:00

U.S. President Barack Obama is seen being interviewed by Britian's Andrew Marr of the BBC in the Diplomatic Reception Room in the White House, in Washington in this photograph received in London on May 21, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Pete Souza/The White House/BBC/Handout

LONDON | Sun May 22, 2011 6:09am EDT

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama would approve a new incursion into Pakistan if the United States found another leading militant there, he said in a BBC interview broadcast on Sunday.

U.S. Navy SEALs killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the September 11 attacks on U.S. cities in 2001, in a raid on his fortified compound in Pakistan on May 2, ending a manhunt for the world's most-wanted militant.

Asked if Obama would do the same again if the United States discovered another "high-value target" in Pakistan or another country, such as a senior al Qaeda member or Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar, he said he would "take the shot."

"We are very respectful of the sovereignty of Pakistan. But we cannot allow someone who is actively planning to kill our people or our allies' people, we can't allow those kind of active plans to come to fruition without us taking some action," Obama told the BBC.

"I had made no secret. I had said this when I was running for the presidency, that if I had a clear shot at bin Laden, that we'd take it."

Obama's comments echoed those of U.S. Senator John Kerry, a Democrat close to his administration and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Asked this month if the United States would conduct a similar raid in Pakistan to kill Omar if they knew his whereabouts, he said Washington would consider all its options.

U.S. officials have long maintained Omar fled to Pakistan after the Taliban government was overthrown in late 2001 by U.S.-backed Afghan forces and is still in hiding there. Islamabad has denied reports he is in Pakistan.

Obama arrives in Britain on Tuesday for a three-day state visit -- the first state visit by a U.S. president since 2003.

He will hold talks with British Prime Minister David Cameron and address the parliament to hail the two countries' special relationship and stress the importance of transatlantic ties.

(Reporting by Olesya Dmitracova

(Reuters)

Afghanistan After Bin Ladin's removal

2011-05-21T01:25:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan is on the verge of going into another catastrophic ignorance by international community. Recent geopolitical turbulence in other parts of the world seems to distracting the world from important Afghan cause. This will carry a harsh consequences for the people of Afghanistan, as well as, for the entire world. Recent increase in insurgent activities in Afghanistan shows that the brutal enemies is determined to sabotage peace and development efforts in Afghanistan. If the enemies of Afghanistan were not stopped of intimidating and threatening the peace efforts, it will take no longer then days, that the entire region will be in a catastrophic chaos.

India to start building a steel plant for Afghanistan

2011-05-19T09:41:00.000-07:00

May 19 (Reuters) - Steel Authority of India is keen to set up a steel plant in Afghanistan if the country provides infrastructure support and raw material sources, the Indian state-run firm said on Thursday.

SAIL said in a statement 15 Indian steel and mining companies, including itself, were among the 22 companies short-listed by the Afghanistan government for grant of mining licences at Hajigak deposits, located 130 kilometres west of Kabul, that carry an estimated 1.8 billion tonnes of high-quality magnetite.

SAIL said its chairman had discussed the proposal with the Afghan minister for mines and that the Afghanistan government had shown keen interest in the proposal. (Reporting by Devidutta Tripathy; Editing by Aradhana Aravindan)

Afghan National Army recruitment is boasted by enthusiastic young Afghans

2011-05-19T05:06:00.000-07:00

This will amazing reach the gap of recruitment shortness felt in recent couple of years. International community and donating countries are spending millions of their money to attract young Afghans to join National Army, and it will be completely dishonest for Afghanistan not give credit to those international support and assistance in this issue, and achievement.

India's unforgettable assistance to Afghanistan

2011-05-19T04:15:00.000-07:00

India to help Afghanistan build 12 dams on Kabul River

Khalid MustafaThursday, May 12, 2011

ISLAMABAD: After restricting the flow of waters in the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab rivers by building hydropower projects on these rivers, India seems poised to intensify the water war against Pakistan with a plan to build 12 hydropower projects on the Kabul River in Afghanistan.

Indian experts are extending help to Afghanistan to build 12 dams on the Kabul River with a total water storage capacity of 4.7 Million Acre Feet (MAF), 25% more than that of Mangla Dam.

According to documents exclusively available with The News, the government of Afghanistan is initiating multi-purpose water projects on the tributaries of the Kabul River with assistance from the international community. India plans to assist Afghanistan in this initiative, which will adversely impact Pakistan. The documents also show that the World Bank will provide funding for the 12 dams that will cost $7.079 billion.

Meanwhile US authorities have also offered their services to facilitate a water treaty between Pakistan and Afghanistan to ward off a future water dispute between the two countries. According to documents, four hydropower projects will be constructed in Punjshir sub-basin. These include the $332 million Totumdara project which will generate 200 MW of electricity and have water storage capacity of 332510 acres feet; the $1.174b Barak project which will generate 100 MW of electricity and store 429830 acres feet of water; $ 1.078 billion Panjshir (100 MW) project with the capacity to store 1054300 acres feet of water; and the $607 million Baghdara (210 MW) project with the capacity to store 324400 acres feet of water.

In the Logur Upper Kabul sub-basin on the Kabul River four more dams are to be built which include the $72 million Haijana project (72 MW) with water storage capacity of 178420 acres feet; $207 million Kajab (15 MW) project with water storage capacity of 324400 acres feet; the $356 million Tangi Wadag (56 MW) project with capacity to store 283850 acres feet; and $51m Gat (86 MW) project with water storage capacity of 405500 acres feet.

Four more dams will be built in the Lower Kabul sub-basin, including the $442 million Sarobi project (210 MW) with the capacity to store 324400 acres feet of water,; the $1.434 billion Laghman project (1251 MW) with water storage capacity of 233568 acres feet; and the $1.094 billion Konar (A) (94.8 MW) and Kama projects (11.5 MW).

Pakistan and Afghanistan currently share nine rivers with annual flows of about 18.3 million acres feet (MAF) of which Kabul River accounts for 16.5 MAF, while River Chitral, which originates from Pakistan, contributes about 8.5 MAF. After it enters Afghanistan this river is called River Kunar. It joins the Kabul River near Jalalabad and then re-enters Pakistan.

Arshad H Abbasi, a water and energy expert associated with the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad has written a letter to President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani drawing their attention towards the Indian plan and urging them to address the issue with the help of neutral experts.

The letter, a copy of which is available with The News, says: “Ninety percent of Afghanistan’s land area is located in the five river basins namely: Panj-Amu Darya River Basin, Northern River Basin, Harirud-Murghab Basin, Helmand River Basin and Kabul River Basin.The total storage capacity of these dams is around 4.7 Million Acre Feet, which is 25% more than that of Mangla Dam. It is further estimated that the planned dams will utilise 0.5 MAF water to irrigate additional 14,000 acres of land.

“Afghanistan has the right to utilise water from the Kabul River as the total flow of Kabul River is 21,000 Million Cubic Meter. But River Kunar, which contributes 15,000 Million Cubic Meter to the Kabul River, originates from Pakistan.

“In the absence of major dams in Pakistan, it is feared that Pakistan will have to buy electricity from Afghanistan, which is the underlying purpose of the above mentioned plan of the Afghan Government in collaboration with India.

Afghanistan in few Photos

2011-05-19T03:54:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan after when US combat troops leave

2011-05-18T22:03:00.000-07:00

The bottom line is, if Afghanistan is left on the mercy of extremist and brutal force as Taliban, who are poised to kill/behead all those involved in establishing a democratic government and society in Afghanistan; then, this exactly will happen on massive capacity. Afghans suffered horrific mass killings and many other war-crimes for last three decades.After Us intervention in 2001, for the first time, women and children given a chance to have access to basic, but proper healthcare system, and women allowed to attend schools, and universities. Employment is based on equal opportunities. More women allowed to take responsible actions and participate in governance and political activism. Afghanistan's financial sector has never been so improved and developed, as it is right now. Public infrastructure is in due course to be one of the best, as the planning and underway projects completed.
Do you really want all these progress and developments to be blown up by the breeze of extremism and religious brutality that will be brought and carried by inhuman force and group as Taliban. What norms and standard will allow any nation, involved in present peace process and stabilization in Afghanistan, predominantly, the US, and UK, to abandon or even leave Afghanistan in the mercy of its enemies.
It is permissive to commit a gradual pull out, in accordance to the level of security, and stabilization of the country. However, a proper geopolitical strategy indicating a long term commitment and partnership to the people of Afghanistan is an absolute and justified factor in support and assistance to this needy nation. It is also important that the strategy should be itemized with a proper and sufficient boot numbers, and military permanent bases on the ground.

Pakistan, Victim of Terrorism?

2011-05-18T11:21:00.000-07:00

BY SADANAND DHUME (Wall Street Journal)

Is Pakistan a victim of terrorism? On the face of it, the notion seems ludicrous. Osama bin Laden's sprawling safe house was found in the shadow of the country's premier military academy. Many now see Pakistan as the abettor, if not perpetrator, of terror.

Islamabad's "double game"—the practice of arresting some terrorists while actively aiding others—has passed into popular parlance. Pakistan remains the likely home of some of the world's most wanted fugitives, including al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri and the Taliban's Mullah Omar. About $20 billion of aid over the past 10 years has not been enough to buy the ..

British military commitment to Afghanistan

2011-05-18T11:02:00.003-07:00

By ALISTAIR MACDONALD

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said British troops will begin withdrawing from Afghanistan this year, the first time the British leader has spoken of withdrawal without applying caveats.

View Full Image

Stefan Rousseau/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

British Prime Minister David Cameron made a speech to doctors and nurses on the National Health Service reforms during a visit to Ealing Hospital in west London, Monday.

Mr. Cameron said the country will withdraw around 400 troops this year from roles such as one in which its Royal Air Force Regiment helps guard Kandahar Airport.

While Mr. Cameron has talked before about British withdrawal, he typically hedges it by saying that pulling out troops will only occur if conditions on the ground are conducive. Tuesday also appeared to be the first time Mr. Cameron has used specific numbers.

"Obviously this year there will be some troops coming home," the prime minister told a committee of British lawmakers.

With around 10,000 troops, the U.K. has the second-highest number of foreign troops in Afghanistan after the U.S. In addition to the roughly 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, there are more than 40,000 international troops in the country fighting a war against insurgents.

U.S. military officers in Afghanistan have drawn up preliminary proposals to withdraw as many as 5,000 troops from the country in July and as many as 5,000 more by the year's end, the first phase of a U.S. pullout promised by President Barack Obama, officials say.

U.K. withdrawal dates have been important for the U.S. because the U.K.'s commitment was seen as helping keep other European nations in the game.

One U.S. official said one reason that the U.S. pushed for 2014 as the date for Afghan forces to take over security of the nation was that the British had committed a large force only through 2015.

Once the British begin to draw down, it could be more difficult to maintain a robust coalition of international forces, he said.

Terrorist and Foreign elements to destroy the future of Afghansitan

2011-05-17T13:40:00.000-07:00

Jon Boone in Kabul
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 May 2011 19.44 BST
Article history

Many Taliban recruits in Kabul juvenile detention centre say there were tricked or coerced into committing atrocities. Photograph: Kamran Jebreili/AP

The Taliban gave Noor Mohammad a simple choice – either they would cut off his hand for stealing or he could redeem himself and bring glory on his family by becoming a suicide bomber.

Held in Taliban custody in a different village from his parents, after allegedly stealing mobile phones during a wedding party in his village, the 14-year-old boy went for the second option.

He was soon being given basic lessons in how to use a handgun, which he would use to shoot the guards at a nearby US military base in Ghazni, a province in south-east Afghanistan which is considered the most violent in the country.

He was also fitted with a suicide vest that covered his torso with explosives. He was told that when inside the base he should touch two trailing wires together, killing himself and as many US and Afghan soldiers as possible.

Having kitted the soon-to-be martyr out in his jihadi outfit, the insurgents took photos and sent him on his way. Such is one method by which the Taliban recruit a growing number of children used for suicide missions.

A tactic pioneered by al-Qaida but almost unheard of in Afghanistan until 2005, suicide bombing is becoming more popular with insurgents attempting to meet the massively intensified Nato campaign with their own surge of violence.

In one recent case a 12-year-old boy in Barmal district in Pakitika province, which borders Pakistan, killed four civilians and wounded many more when he detonated a vest full of explosives in a bazaar.

"They are relying more and more on children," said Nader Nadery, from the country's Independent Human Rights Commission, who thought the Taliban were struggling to recruit enough adults. "When somebody runs out of one tool they go to use the second one."

Mohammad, who talked to the Guardian on Tuesday at a children's prison in Kabul, is awaiting trial after surrendering to the Americans rather than going through with the attack.

He says he was left by his Taliban handlers to walk the last few miles to the base in Andar district two weeks ago. Instead he sat down and thought about his predicament. "It is a sin to kill yourself and to kill others," he decided. "So I took off the vest and threw it away."

Surrendering proved tricky as the guards he had been supposed to kill were slow to raise the alert and he was questioned only after sleeping outside the camp for a night.

He later led the Americans to the village where the Taliban members lived, identifying a house where the Americans recovered weapons and homemade explosives.

Two Taliban from the village were also killed during a shootout after he identified them, Mohammad said. He knows that because he will never be able to go back to his village and will probably never see his family again.

Not all bombers are coerced. Some are tricked, like a group of four children who were recently arrested after travelling alone across the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

Lutfullah Mashal, the spokesman for the National Directorate of Security (NDS), said his spy agency's informants in Peshawar had raised the alarm that the four were on their way.

The boys had confessed during questioning, telling the security forces they believed only American soldiers would die when they detonated their bombs and that they would escape unscathed.

But, speaking on Tuesday, they claimed they were forced into making a confession after being beaten and threatened with rape by police. Their new account is hard to believe, however, and at times contradictory.

According to Fazal Rahman, a tearful nine-year-old made all the more distressed by the loss of two teeth at the dentist, the idea to travel to Afghanistan came from Maulavi Marouf, the mullah in charge of the Spin Jumad madrasa in the town of Khairabad.

They say an "uncle" in Kabul phoned Marouf asking him to send some physically weak children for a couple of days of manual labour, unloading a delivery of car batteries from lorries.

None of the boys, who are Afghans but have lived in Pakistan all their lives, has an address or phone number for the man. Nor did they think it necessary to tell their parents they were going to Kabul.

"Our family is very poor," said Niaz Mohammad, a nine-year-old who said he used to help his father beg. "When I was promised 50,000 rupees [£360] to go to Afghanistan, I went immediately."

But they all describe the madrasa as an institution that cultivated in them a hatred for American soldiers in Afghanistan. "All the time in Friday prayers the maulavi talked about the Americans in Afghanistan and he told us that we should do jihad, especially on Fridays," he said.

It is feared that hundreds of children may have been radicalised and turned into bombers in what Haneef Atmar, Afghanistan's former interior minister, describes as "hate madrasas".

Suicide bombing has also developed a sinister glamour among the youthof the Pakistan's tribal areas. A video in which a group of children enact a suicide bombing has circulated widely in Pakistan in February, sparking public alarm at how jihad appears to have reached the playground.

It also seems to have reached the Kabul juvenile detention centre where staff are trying to give the mix of criminals and would-be jihadists a proper education. "When I told my cellmates I refused to do a suicide attack, none of them could understand why I didn't do it," said Mohammad.

Winning Afghanistan

2011-05-17T05:37:00.000-07:00

Due to the volatility of the regional conflict including Afghanistan's geopolitical turmoil, there is a widely understood presence and permanent commitment needed. Afghanistan's violent history shows a major complexity might drag the post-US, and -NATO Afghanistan into a chaos where the whole region might plunge into catastrophic consequences.
Therefore, Afghanistan, and international community must agree up on a strategy which will guarantee a permanent US, and NATO commitment to Afghanistan. This will spare Afghanistan from regional conflicts; additionally, it will provide country-saving opportunity for Afghans to focus on rebuilding and developing their country.

Nato's Afghanistan strategy

2010-11-20T14:34:00.000-08:00

NATO has said it will hand over security in Afghanistan to national forces by the end of 2014.
Opening the second day of a major summit in Lisbon, Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance would not abandon the country in fighting the Taliban.
"Today marks the beginning of a new phase in our mission in Afghanistan," he said.
"If the enemies of Afghanistan have the idea that they can just wait it out until we leave, they have the wrong idea. We will stay as long as it takes to finish our job."
The summit is being attended by representatives from 48 countries.
NATO will also meet Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during the summit, and will discuss Russian assistance in the conflict and an alliance missile shield.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has set 2014 as the date he wants his forces to have full security responsibility.
President Barack Obama, who has sent 30,000 more US troops to the war in the past year to try to quell the Taliban-led insurgency, intends to start withdrawing some forces from July 2011 and backs the aim of an end to combat within four years.
He also supports efforts at reconciliation with the Taliban.
Rasmussen said the new strategy did not mean all 150,000 foreign troops now deployed in Afghanistan would leave the country by the 2014 deadline.
"Let there be no doubt about our continuing commitment. Afghanistan's fight against terrorism is of strategic, global importance," the former Danish prime minister said.

"Which is why we will agree here today a long-term partnership between NATO and Afghanistan to endure beyond the end of our combat mission."

High-level talks aim for an end to Afghan war

2010-10-19T23:17:00.000-07:00

Taliban leaders are meeting with President Karzai's inner circle
Gemunu Amarasinghe / AP

In a photo from Oct. 7, 2010, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, second from right, prays with members of the Afghanistan's peace council during its inaugural session in Kabul.
KABUL, Afghanistan — Talks to end the war in Afghanistan involve extensive, face-to-face discussions with Taliban commanders from the highest levels of the group’s leadership, who are secretly leaving their sanctuaries in Pakistan with the help of NATO troops, officials here say.
The discussions, some of which have taken place in Kabul, are unfolding between the inner circle of President Hamid Karzai and members of the Quetta shura, the leadership group that oversees the Taliban war effort inside Afghanistan. Afghan leaders have also held discussions with leaders of the Haqqani network, considered to be one of the most hard-line guerrilla factions fighting here; and members of the Peshawar shura, whose fighters are based in eastern Afghanistan.
The Taliban leaders coming into Afghanistan for talks have left their havens in Pakistan on the explicit assurance that they would not be attacked or arrested byNATO forces, Afghans familiar with the talks said. Many top Taliban leaders reside in Pakistan, where they are believed to enjoy at least some official protection.
NYT: Talks to end the war in Afghanistan involve extensive, face-to-face discussions with Taliban commanders from the highest levels of the group’s leadership, who are secretly leaving their sanctuaries in Pakistan with the help of NATO troops, officials say. Full story
Mumbai attack prompts intelligence review
Northern Mexico struck by two earthquakes
NYT: CIA was warned of Afghan base bomber
Chechen parliament, ministry attacked
In at least one case, Taliban leaders crossed the border and boarded a NATO aircraft bound for Kabul, according to an Afghan with knowledge of the talks. In other cases, NATO troops have secured roads to allow Taliban officials to reach Afghan- and NATO-controlled areas so that they can take part in discussions. Most of the discussions have taken place outside of Kabul, according to the Afghan official.
American officials said last week that talks between Afghan and Taliban leaders are under way. But the ranks of the insurgents, the fact that they represent multiple factions, and the extent of NATO efforts to provide transportation and security to adversaries they otherwise try to kill or capture have not been previously disclosed.
At least 4 Taliban leaders At least four Taliban leaders, three of them members of the Quetta shura and one of them a member of the Haqqani family, have taken part in discussions, according to the Afghan official and a former diplomat in the region.
The identities of the Taliban leaders are being withheld by The New York Times at the request of the White House and an Afghan who has taken part in the discussions. The Afghan official said that identifying the men could result in their deaths or detention at the hands of rival Taliban commanders or the Pakistani intelligence agents who support them.
The discussions are still described as preliminary, partly because Afghan and American officials are trying to determine how much influence the Taliban leaders who have participated in the talks have within their own organizations.
Even so, the talks have been held on several different occasions and appear to represent the most substantive effort to date to negotiate an end to the nine-year-old war, which began with an American-led campaign to overthrow the Taliban following the 9/11 attacks. “These are face-to-face to discussions,” said an Afghan with knowledge of the talks. “This is not about making the Americans happy or making Karzai happy. It’s about what is in the best interests of the Afghan people.”
“These talks are based on personal relationships,” the official said. “When the Taliban see that they can travel in the country without being attacked by the Americans, they see that the government is sovereign, that they can trust us.”
The discussions appear to be unfolding without the approval of Pakistan’s leaders, who are believed to exercise a wide degree of control over the Taliban’s leadership. The Afghan government seems to be trying to seek a reconciliation agreement that does not directly involve Pakistan, which Mr. Karzai’s government fears will exercise too much influence over Afghanistan after NATO forces withdraw.
But that strategy could backfire by provoking the Pakistanis, who could undermine any agreement.
Mullah Omar cut out Mullah Muhammad Omar, the overall leader of the Taliban, is explicitly being cut out of the negotiations, in part because of his closeness to the Pakistani security services, officials said.
Afghans who have attempted to take part in, or even facilitate, past negotiations, have been killed by their Taliban comrades, sometimes with the assistance Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI.
“The ISI will try to prevent these negotiations from happening,” the Afghan official said. “The ISI will just eliminate them,” he said, referring to the people who take part.
Earlier this year, the ISI detained as many as 23 Taliban leaders residing in Pakistan after the intelligence service discovered that the Taliban leaders were talking secretly with representatives of the Afghan government.
Cutting Mullah Omar out of the negotiations appears to represent an attempt by Afghan leaders to drive a wedge into the upper ranks of the Taliban leadership. Though there is some disagreement among Afghan officials, many regard Mullah Omar as essentially a prisoner of the Pakistani security establishment who would be unable to exercise any independence.
Some American and Afghan officials believe that the Taliban is vulnerable to being split, with potentially large chunks of the movement defecting to the Afghan government.
The Haqqani group is the namesake of Jalalhuddin Haqqani, a former minister in the Taliban government in the 1990s who presides over a Mafia-like organization based in North Waziristan in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The Haqqani network has sheltered several members of Al Qaeda and maintains close links to Pakistan’s security services.
The group is believed to be responsible for many suicide attacks inside Kabul that have killed hundreds of civilians. Earlier this year, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of NATO forces here, asked the Obama administration to declare the Haqqani network a terrorist organization. That has not happened.
Indeed, the endorsement of such talks presents the Americans with a paradox. Many if not most of the leaders of the Taliban and the Haqqani group are targets for death or capture. Many of the same individuals are also on the United Nations “black list,” which obliges governments to freeze their assets and prevent them from traveling.
Waheed Omar, a spokesman for President Karzai, acknowledged that the government was in contract with a range of Taliban leaders, but he declined to discuss any details. “I cannot confirm that there have been discussions with the Quetta shura,” he said.

The Taliban leadership and those in their immediate circle appear to be in the dark as well. A Pakistani cleric close to the Quetta shura and the Haqqani leadership said in an interview that he was unaware of any face-to-face discussions with Afghan leaders. But he said the Afghan government had recently sent out feelers to several Taliban commanders, with the proviso that Mullah Omar be left out.
“The problem is, they want to exclude Mullah Omar,” the cleric said. “If you exclude him, then there cannot be any talks at all.”
Talks in Saudi Arabia The Pakistani cleric said that some discussions among members of the Quetta shura may have taken place recently in Saudi Arabia, where many of the group’s leaders had traveled during the holy month of Ramadan.
One Pakistani security official said he was aware of talks involving a member of the Quetta shura. But he said those discussions would likely come to nothing, because the Taliban leader did not any have official endorsement.
“He’s useless,” the Pakistani security officer said of the Taliban leader. “This guy is not in a position to make a deal.”
For their part, American officials say they are wary of investing too much hope in the discussions. In the past, talks — or, more accurately, talks about talks — have foundered over preconditions that each side has set: For the Taliban, that the Americans must first withdrawal; for the Afghan government, that the Taliban must first disarm.
Perhaps the biggest complication lies on the battlefield. As long as the Taliban believe they are winning, they do not seem likely to want to make a deal. In recent months, as the additional troops and resources ordered up by President Obama have poured in, the American military has stepped up operations against Taliban strongholds.
So far, the insurgents have shown few public signs of wanting to give up. That much was acknowledged Tuesday by the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta.
“Ifee of The New York Times also contributed reporting there are elements that wish to reconcile and get reintegrated, that ought to be obviously explored,” he said in Washington. “But I still have not seen anything that indicates that at this point a serious effort is being made to reconcile.”

Brussels: Karzai the only dice in the game

2010-04-09T15:13:00.000-07:00

Afghan President Hamid Karzai's outburst against his Western backers last week has fueled doubts about their involvement in Afghanistan but they have little choice but to continue supporting him.

Karzai accused Western embassies of carrying out election fraud and of seeking to weaken him in presidential polls last year in which he himself was accused of cheating.

Washington dismissed the claims as "just not true" and "disturbing," and initially suggested they could put a May meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Karzai in jeopardy.

Several other contributors to the 44-nation NATO-led force in Afghanistan -- 40 percent of which is made up of non-U.S. troops -- also showed their dismay at the unexpected comments.

Britain, where many are concerned by the mounting death toll among its 9,500 troops battling Taliban insurgents, called the comments malign and the Netherlands called them deplorable.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the remarks were "completely unacceptable," while NATO said it hoped the Afghan leadership understood the sacrifices of the alliance's 90,000-strong force, which lost more than 700 troops last year.

However, the United States has since appeared to roll back, saying Karzai's Washington visit would go ahead as U.S. officials try to get on top in the eight-year conflict.

On Thursday, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen took a pragmatic line, saying Karzai might not always do and say what allies liked, but it was necessary to work with him.

"He is the political figure with whom we must engage in Afghanistan... He's the man with whom we can and will and must cooperate," Rasmussen said on a visit to Chicago.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, whose country has 4,300 troops in the NATO force, was also diplomatic.

"We work together well with the Afghan government," he told Bild newspaper. "However, we expect President Karzai to stick to the goals he set himself, like tackling corruption."

KARZAI'S "RISKY GAME"

Farzana Shaikh, from London's Chatham House think tank, said Karzai seemed to be calculating that in the absence of a credible alternative, Obama had no choice but to continue depending on him. But she said he was taking a risk.

"It appears on the face of it to be a game of straight brinkmanship...Of course, his bluff could be called, which is why I'm saying it's a risky game," she said.

"What we're seeing is a war of words that might prove damaging in the long term but that might also evaporate."

Shaikh said the row came at an awkward time for Western governments, before an expected military operation by the international force in the Taliban heartland of Kandahar.

"There might well be a popular mood in Western countries with troops in Afghanistan, a sense of 'Why on earth are we supporting a man who doesn't appreciate our efforts?'

"But that popular pressure is not something Western leaders are unaccustomed to. They have already weathered that storm."

Defense analyst Charles Heyman said Karzai's comments were bound to increase doubts in Western public opinion.

"The domestic population in the U.S. and in Europe...are probably looking at their politicians and saying 'Where is all this going? What's going on?'.

"'There's an enormous amount of blood and treasure being expended in Afghanistan, and you don't seem to be able to work in tandem with the Afghan leadership. Something is going seriously wrong'.

"'If the Afghans are saying they don't particularly want us there, what are we doing there in the first place?'"

Roman Kuzniar of Warsaw University called Karzai's comments "scandalous" but said they had to be taken seriously and added that not all troop-contributing nations had the same interests.

"The U.S. has its vital interest in Afghanistan, so they believe they have to support Karzai no matter what. But other countries can choose whether they want to participate in this."

Kuzniar said Obama had set a 2011 deadline to start cutting U.S. troop numbers and countries like Poland, which has 2,140 troops in the country, should focus on that timeline.

"Poland has no interests there...we cannot just stick there for ever. Obama said 18 months, so by then we should not be part of this farce there any more," he said.

Karzai's alleged drug use

2010-04-07T14:31:00.000-07:00

Hamid Karzai in Downing Street on 28 January. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

The Obama administration is to step up efforts to bypass Hamid Karzai after a series of controversial remarks by the Afghan president over recent days renewed concern about his reliability as an ally.

With relations between Washington and Kabul at a new low, the former UN envoy to Kabul Peter Galbraith said Karzai's comments raised questions about his mental stability and blamed them on alleged drug use.

Galbraith, an American who was the former deputy UN chief in Afghanistan, was responding to allegations first made by the Afghan president last Thursday. Karzai said the international community, and Galbraith in particular, had been responsible for "massive fraud" during last year's disastrous presidential election.

"He's prone to tirades, he can be very emotional, act impulsively," Galbraith said on MSNBC television. "In fact, some of the palace insiders say that he has a certain fondness for some of Afghanistan's most profitable exports." When asked whether he was saying Karzai had a substance abuse problem, Galbraith said there were "reports to that effect".

Siamak Hirawi, a spokesman for the Afghan president, said today that the former UN envoy was a liar.

"What Mr Galbraith said is far away from the principle of diplomacy and it simply confirms what President Karzai was saying about [Galbraith's] involvement in corruption," said Hirawi.

The White House yesterday threatened to cancel a visit by Karzai scheduled for 12 May unless his behaviour improved in the interim.

The Obama administration has described as troublesome remarks by Karzai that included: accusing the US, UK and UN of orchestrating fraud in last year's election and attempting to establish a puppet government in Kabul; a reported threat to join the Taliban if Washington keeps putting pressure on him; a description of Nato forces as an army of occupation; and a suggestion that the people of Kandahar province would have a veto over an impending Nato offensive there.

Karzai's spokesman today denied he had made the remark about threatening to join the Taliban.

But Karzai's behaviour over the last week has confirmed the White House's long-held view that he cannot be trusted. The Afghan president was unreliable, an Obama administration official said.

The official added that while the US cannot afford to write Karzai off and would continue to deal with him, it will focus on ways to work round him. One of these will be to step up efforts to bypass him and work directly with provincial governments, a long-held ambition that has so far made only limited progress.

The White House is concerned that attempts to bolster provincial governors have fallen well behind schedule.

There was a hint today that Kabul thinks the row with Washington and Nato has gone on long enough, when it announced two senior officials from Afghanistan's independent electoral commission had resigned their posts – a key demand of the international community.

Azizullah Ludin, the IEC chairman, and Daoud Ali Najafi, the chief electoral officer, were accused of not doing enough to tackle fraud during last year's poll.

But the Guardian has learned that diplomats fear Karzai is planning to appoint a key ally, Abdul Karim Khurram, to head the commission, a move that would be unlikely to satisfy western demands for an impartial election chief.

A senior western diplomat welcomed the IEC resignations but said they were "just symbolic" and that the real test would be whether the new appointments were "spiteful or constructive".

The foreign secretary, David Miliband, weighed into the row over Karzai's remarks, saying the "malign suggestions" that the UK was involved in "irregularly interfering in the election process of Afghanistan is completely without foundation".

Karzai's claims that foreigners were responsible for "very widespread fraud" were first made shortly after Barack Obama's fleeting visit to Kabul last week.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, tried to defuse the row during a phone call with Karzai on Friday, but he went on to repeat his claims to Afghan MPs.

On Sunday, during a trip to Kandahar, he told the BBC that he stood by his allegations, despite the furore they had created.

Abdullah Abdullah, the runner up in last year's presidential election, said the resignation of the two men was "not enough at all".

"The problem is the system where Karza appoints the people who work at the IEC. There are thousands of people who work there and just getting rid of two of them will not change anything."

Even if the international community gets its way, the rows and allegation of drug taking will damage Karzai's reputation abroad and at home. While parts of the Afghan media have cheered Karzai for standing up to his international patrons, others have been alarmed that the vital relationship between Afghanistan and the US could be undermined.

Massoud Rahman, a retired army colonel, said he was "really saddened" by recent events.

"There's no doubt that there could be some foreigners who are interfering with Afghanistan's internal issues but he is the president and he should not behave like this, particularly when so many countries are here to help us."

President Karzai's gullible remarks

2010-04-06T14:02:00.000-07:00

President Hamid Karzai is under enormous internal and external pressure due to slow pace of progress, upcoming offensive aimed at Kandahar stronghold, as well as Karzai's home town, and complains in regards to corruption, incompetency, and inadequate implication of law in order.

In the midst of he controversial trip to Kandahar, he tries to avoid more bloodshed, civilians deaths, and other calamities typically accompanied with such enormous military offensives. Therefore, he is, in my humble opinion, using a bit bitter language in order to bring the majority of these tribal, who are associated with insurgents, to abandon their weapons, and be peaceful residents.

In these hard times, he definitely needs the support of international fraternity, patience, and expertise from Afghans themselves and from international community as well. I am sure the international community is not going to tie their willingness to a couple of negative rhetorics blushed out in Karzai's recent trip to Kandahar. In fact, they know the severity of these conditions and they will definitely jump into help Karzai in his challenges, once they were asked to do so.

For the Afghans, please constrain your verbal assault on a "President of a country"'s personnel matters. One might be practicing he/her newly improved vocabulary, but at the end of the day, it is still called "defamation on purpose".

President Karzai's threats

2010-04-05T18:20:00.000-07:00

KABUL – Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened over the weekend to quit the political process and join the Taliban if he continued to come under outside pressure to reform, several members of parliamentsaid Monday.

Karzai made the unusual statement at a closed-door meeting Saturday with selected lawmakers — just days after kicking up a diplomatic controversy with remarks alleging foreigners were behind fraud in last year's disputed elections.

Lawmakers dismissed the latest comment as hyperbole, but it will add to the impression the president — who relies on tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO forces to fight the insurgency and prop up his government — is growing increasingly erratic and unable to exert authority without attacking his foreign backers.

"He said that 'if I come under foreign pressure, I might join theTaliban'," said Farooq Marenai, who represents the eastern province of Nangarhar.

"He said rebelling would change to resistance," Marenai said — apparently suggesting that the militant movement would then be redefined as one of resistance against a foreign occupation rather than a rebellion against an elected government.

Marenai said Karzai appeared nervous and repeatedly demanded to know why parliament last week had rejected legal reforms that would have strengthened the president's authority over the country's electoral institutions.

Two other lawmakers said Karzai twice raised the threat to join the insurgency.

The lawmakers, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of political repercussions, said Karzai also dismissed concerns over possible damage his comments had caused to relations with the United States. He told them he had already explained himself in a telephone conversation Saturday withSecretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that came after the White House described his comments last week as troubling.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said reports Karzai threatened to abandon the political process and join the Taliban insurgency if he continued to receive pressure from Western backers to reform his government are troubling.

"On behalf of the American people, we're frustrated with the remarks," Gibbs told reporters.

The lawmakers said they felt Karzai was pandering to hard-line or pro-Taliban members of parliament and had no real intention of joining the insurgency.

Nor does the Afghan leader appear concerned that the U.S. might abandon him, having said numerous times that the U.S. would not leave Afghanistan because it perceives a presence here to be in its national interest.

Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar's phone was turned off and another number for him rang unanswered Monday. Deputy spokesman Hamed Elmi's phone rang unanswered.

The comments come against the background of continuing insurgent violence as the U.S. moves to boost troop levels in a push against Taliban strongholds in the south.

NATO forces said they killed 10 militants in a joint U.S.-Afghan raid on a compound in Nangarhar province's Khogyani district near the Pakistani border early Monday, while gunmen seriously wounded an Afghan provincial councilwoman in a drive-by shooting in the country's increasingly violent north.

NATO also confirmed that international troops were responsible for the deaths of five civilians, including three women, on Feb. 12 in Gardez, south of Kabul.

A NATO statement said a joint international-Afghan patrol fired on two men mistakenly believed to be insurgents. It said the three women were "accidentally killed as a result of the joint force firing at the men."

International force officials will discuss the results of the investigation with family of those killed, apologize and provide compensation, he said.

The two men killed in the Gardez raid had been long-serving government loyalists and opponents of al-Qaida and the Taliban, one serving as provincial district attorney and the other as police chief in Paktia's Zurmat district.

Their brother, who also lost his wife and a sister, said he learned of the investigation result from the Internet, but had yet to receive formal notice.

Mohammad Sabar said the family's only demand was that the informant who passed on the faulty information about militant activity be tried and publicly executed.

"Please, please, please, our desire, our demand is that this spy be executed in front of the people to ensure that such bad things don't happen again," Sabar said.

In the latest of a series of targeted assassination attempts blamed on militants, Baghlan provincial council member Nida Khyani was struck by gunfire in the leg and abdomen in Pul-e Khumri, capital of the northern province, said Salim Rasouli, head of the provincial health department. Khyani's bodyguard was also slightly injured.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the shooting, although suspicion immediately fell on Taliban fighters who often target people working with the Afghan government and their Western backers.

One month ago, a member of the Afghan national parliament escaped injury when her convoy was attacked by Taliban insurgents in eastern Afghanistan. Female government officials regularly report receiving threats to their safety. Some women leaders, including a prominent policewoman, have been assassinated.

The Taliban rigidly oppose education for girls and women's participation in public affairs, citing their narrow interpretation of conservative Islam and tribal traditions. Militants, who are strongest in the south and east, carry out beatings and other punishments for perceived women's crimes from immodesty to leaving home unaccompanied by a male relative.

Also Monday, the organizer of a national reconciliation conference — known as a jirga — scheduled for early May said it would not include insurgent groups such as the Taliban. There has also been indications it would include discussion of the withdrawal of 120,000 foreign troops in the country.

Ghulam Farooq Wardak, the minister of education who is organizing the conference, said it will focus on outlining ways to reach peace with the insurgents and the framework for possible discussions.

Out of the jirga will come the "powerful voice of the Afghan people," Wardak said. "By fighting, you cannot restore security. The only way to bring peace is through negotiation."

World's top Hashish State

2010-04-02T22:05:00.000-07:00

new U.N. survey shows Afghanistan is not only the world's top opium producer, but it has surpassed Morocco in becoming the top global producer of hashish. From Paris, our correspondent has more on the findings by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime.

The U.N. survey adds to international concern about Afghanistan's drug cultivation. While Afghanistan is not the world's-largest producer of cannabis in terms of acreage, it tops the list when it comes to producing hashish from the crop.

Overall, the study by the Vienna-based U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime found Afghan farmers produce between 1,500 and 3,500 tons of hashish per year.

Like opium, of which Afghanistan is also the world's top producer, cultivation of cannabis is largely concentrated in the more unstable south.

UN drugs office spokesman Walter Kemp says there is some good news in the report, farmers in other parts of the country appear to be turning away from drug cultivation.

"We see generally throughout the country, farmers in areas not in the south of the country are turning to alternatives, because they know that growing these illicit crops is illegal," said Walter Kemp. "Slowly, slowly, development assistance is coming through. The government and provincial governors are able to enforce the law better. International forces are also having their impact."

Afghanistan's illegal drugs industry amounts to a $3-billion a year business controlled by gangs and militants. The narcotics are smuggled through central Asian and Balkans routes and end up for sale in Russia, Western Europe and Asia.

Kemp says there are also serious concerns about the level of drug addiction among the Afghan population.

"The indications are that it is a serious problem in terms of opium consumption and also cannabis," he said. "But we will only have the hard date in the next few months."

The U.N. office also has a message for the international community.

"We are saying to governments that you have a strong responsibility not only to improve the situation in Afghanistan, but to stop the addiction in your own countries, which is driving this whole drugs trade," said Kemp.

In other words, the United Nations says fighting drug production and trade goes hand in hand with fighting the insurgency in Afghanistan.

Karzai's clownish accusations

2010-04-02T12:49:00.000-07:00

Karzai has occasionally sniped at the Western countries that have 120,000 troops in Afghanistan, but his full-throated remarks on Thursday were unprecedentedly bitter and direct.

In a speech to election officials, he accused Western embassies of bribing and threatening officials, tampering with election results and conspiring to weaken the Afghan government.

"Foreigners will make excuses, they do not want us to have a parliamentary election," Karzai said. "They want parliament to be weakened and battered and for me to be an ineffective president, and for parliament to be ineffective."

In Washington, the White House said the United States was seeking clarification of Karzai's comments.

"Obviously some of the comments of President Karzai are troubling," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters. "They're cause for real and genuine concern."

The remarks follow a deterioration in the relationship on both sides and come days after an awkward visit by U.S. President Barack Obama, who arrived and left under cover of darkness and did not answer media questions in Karzai's presence.

Diplomats said that while they were taken aback by the high visibility and direct tone of Karzai's latest comments, they were not surprised to find themselves the butt of his attack.

"Karzai has been biting the hands that have been feeding him for some time. This is not a new pattern," said one Western diplomat in Kabul. "This was particularly visible, but he's been Western-bashing and U.S.-bashing for some time now."

Another diplomat described the remarks as a negotiating tactic to influence talks to resolve how a parliamentary election will be run this year, which could backfire by hurting support for the war in Western countries back home.

Karzai has tried to remove U.N. appointees from their majority position on an election fraud watchdog that threw out a third of his ballots during a presidential poll last year. The lower house of parliament voted on Wednesday to overrule him.

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION COOL

But the tension goes deeper than a spat over electoral rules.

Karzai has had a frosty relationship with the Obama administration from the outset and it deteriorated late last year in the aftermath of his disputed presidential election.

U.S. ambassador Karl Eikenberry, in a classified cable that was later leaked, wrote in November that Karzai was "not an adequate strategic partner" and recommended against sending troop reinforcements unless Karzai implemented reforms.

Nevertheless, in December Obama re-committed to a counter-insurgency strategy to protect Karzai's government, and ordered 30,000 extra troops to the country this year.

So far this year, U.S. and Western officials have tried to play down their differences with Karzai in public, receiving him warmly at a conference in London in January.

They praised commitments he made to tackling corruption in his inauguration speech in November and hailed his decision to keep pro-Western ministers in some cabinet posts.

But Western frustration has since grown.

A promised anti-corruption crackdown has not materialized. Quietly, Karzai's government disclosed it had made a 2007 amnesty bill into law, granting immunity for war crimes to armed groups, a measure denounced by the United Nations.

Unlike his predecessor George W. Bush, who held video conferences with Karzai regularly, Obama has held only one video conference with the Afghan leader so far this year.

The lack of trust between Karzai and the West could directly hurt the campaign on the battlefield in coming months, when U.S. troops launch the war's biggest operation in the southern city of Kandahar, said Tim Ripley, who writes about defense for Jane's publications in Britain.

"The obvious problem is, the aim of counter-insurgency war is to win the population to the cause. And if you don't believe in the cause, it's difficult to sell it to the population," he said.

"They seem to be not having much confidence in the Afghan government, and the Afghan government doesn't have much confidence in us either."

In recent days, U.S. military officials have briefed reporters on the Kandahar operation, saying they would prefer to sideline Karzai's half-brother, the province's provincial council chief and most powerful man.

Karzai stands by his brother and is unlikely to accept any pressure to reduce his family's interests.

Karzai's main election opponent from last year, ex-foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, pounced on Karzai's remarks as a sign the president was losing his grip, even telling reporters he feared for Karzai's "well being."

Karzai's remarks were intended to be "populist, anti-foreigner," but would backfire at a time when he remains dependent on the West, where public support for aid to Afghanistan is fragile and flagging, Abdullah said.

"Look at the very, very small window of opportunity which is left -- which is the presence of the international community and they still have the commitment to help Afghanistan. And then you have a leader talking in that sense?" Abdullah told Reuters.