Tweet
Suicide Bombers Target US Base in Northern Afghanistan
VOA News October 15, 2011
Armed militants launched a suicide attack on a U.S.-run base in northeastern Afghanistan, killing two people.
A provincial police spokesman says four suicide bombers targeted the base of the U.S. Provincial Reconstruction Team in an attack early Saturday morning in Panjshir province.
Officials say two civilians were killed in the bombing, in addition to the militants. Two security guards were wounded.
The Taliban has claimed responsibility, saying the militants attacked on foot and with an explosive-filled vehicle.
A NATO spokesman confirmed the incident and said there were no foreign casualties.
Elsewhere Saturday, two militants were killed and three wounded when the bombs they were assembling prematurely exploded at a house in southern Kandahar province.
A New Pakistan Policy: Containment
The New York Times By BRUCE O. RIEDEL October 15, 2011
Washington - AMERICA needs a new policy for dealing with Pakistan. First, we must recognize that the two countries’ strategic interests are in conflict, not harmony, and will remain that way as long as Pakistan’s army controls Pakistan’s strategic policies. We must contain the Pakistani Army’s ambitions until real civilian rule returns and Pakistanis set a new direction for their foreign policy.
As Adm. Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee last month, Pakistan provides critical sanctuary and support to the Afghan insurgency that we are trying to suppress. Taliban leaders meet under Pakistani protection even as we try to capture or kill them.
In 2009, I led a policy review for President Obama on Pakistan and Afghanistan. At the time, Al Qaeda was operating with virtual impunity in Pakistan, and its ally Lashkar-e-Taiba had just attacked the Indian city of Mumbai and killed at least 163 people, including 6 Americans, with help from Pakistani intelligence. Under no illusions, Mr. Obama tried to improve relations with Pakistan by increasing aid and dialogue; he also expanded drone operations to fight terrorist groups that Pakistan would not fight on its own.
It was right to try engagement, but now the approach needs reshaping. We will have to persevere in Afghanistan in the face of opposition by Pakistan.
The generals who run Pakistan have not abandoned their obsession with challenging India. They tolerate terrorists at home, seek a Taliban victory in Afghanistan and are building the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal. They have sidelined and intimidated civilian leaders elected in 2008. They seem to think Pakistan is invulnerable, because they control NATO’s supply line from Karachi to Kabul and have nuclear weapons.
The generals also think time is on their side — that NATO is doomed to give up in Afghanistan, leaving them free to act as they wish there. So they have concluded that the sooner America leaves, the better it will be for Pakistan. They want Americans and Europeans to believe the war is hopeless, so they encourage the Taliban and other militant groups to speed the withdrawal with spectacular attacks, like the Sept. 13 raid on the United States Embassy in Kabul, which killed 16 Afghan police officers and civilians.
It is time to move to a policy of containment, which would mean a more hostile relationship. But it should be a focused hostility, aimed not at hurting Pakistan’s people but at holding its army and intelligence branches accountable. When we learn that an officer from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, is aiding terrorism, whether in Afghanistan or India, we should put him on wanted lists, sanction him at the United Nations and, if he is dangerous enough, track him down. Putting sanctions on organizations in Pakistan has not worked in the past, but sanctioning individuals has — as the nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan could attest.
Offering Pakistan more trade while reducing aid makes sense. When we extend traditional aid, media outlets with ties to the ISI cite the aid to weave conspiracy theories that alienate Pakistanis from us. Mr. Obama should instead announce that he is cutting tariffs on Pakistani textiles to or below the level that India and China enjoy; that would strengthen entrepreneurs and women, two groups who are outside the army’s control and who are interested in peace.
Military assistance to Pakistan should be cut deeply. Regular contacts between our officers and theirs can continue, but under no delusion that we are allies.
Osama bin Laden’s death confirmed that we can’t rely on Pakistan to take out prominent terrorists on its soil. We will still need bases in Afghanistan from which to act when we see a threat in Pakistan. But drones should be used judiciously, for very important targets.
In Afghanistan, we should not have false hopes for a political solution. We can hope that top figures among the Quetta Shura — Afghan Taliban leaders who are sheltered in Quetta, Pakistan — will be delivered to the bargaining table, but that is unlikely, since the Quetta leadership assassinated Burhanuddin Rabbani, the leader of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council and a former Afghan president, last month. The ISI will veto any Taliban peace efforts it opposes, which means any it doesn’t control. Rather than hoping for ISI help, we need to continue to build an Afghan Army that can control the insurgency with long-term NATO assistance and minimal combat troops.
Strategic dialogue with India about Pakistan is essential because it would focus the Pakistani Army’s mind. India and Pakistan are trying to improve trade and transportation links severed after they became independent in 1947, and we should encourage that. We should also increase intelligence cooperation against terrorist targets in Pakistan. And we should encourage India to be more conciliatory on Kashmir, by easing border controls and releasing prisoners.
America and Pakistan have had a tempestuous relationship for decades. For far too long we have banked on the Pakistani Army to protect our interests. Now we need to contain that army’s aggressive instincts, while helping those who want a progressive Pakistan and keeping up the fight against terrorism.
Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. officer and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the author of “Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and the Future of the Global Jihad.”
Parliamentarian’s hunger strike highlights Afghan political crisis
A woman’s life hangs in the balance as the Afghan government continues to engage in political brinksmanship.
Global Post By Jean MacKenzie and Abdul Qayum Suroush October 14, 2011
KABUL, Afghanistan - Semeen Barakzai lies in a white tent outside the Parliament building in Kabul.
Having refused food and liquids for more than 11 days, she is very weak. Her kidneys are failing, she has been rushed to hospital on one occasion, and her family, friends and supporters fear for her life.
“My sole aim is to ensure justice,” she said in an interview several days ago, her voice even then barely above a whisper. “Either my appeal will be accepted by the appropriate national and international entities or my life will end.”
Barakzai is protesting what she sees as illegal and unjust actions by President Hamid Karzai's government against her and colleagues in Parliament.
She was one of nine MPs expelled from the legislature for alleged fraud in a long-running clash between the executive and legislative branches that has paralyzed the government for more than a year. Many believe the conflict could well lead to a complete collapse of the system if it is not resolved soon.
Karzai and a host of other government officials have visited Barakzai her tent to plead for an end to her hunger strike and to offer reassurances that a solution will be found. But nothing has yet been done, said her husband, Mohammad Barakzai. The couple is not prepared to take empty promises.
“The government is not considering our appeal, so we are not appealing to the government any more,” he said. “Semeen would have not been in this critical condition if the government had considered her request.”
Various organizations, including the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) have agitated for Karzai to take action.
Barakzai wants her case, and those of the other eights MPs who were expelled, to be reopened, with a full and fair accounting to the Afghan people. So far, this has not been done.
The problem began in September, 2010, with parliamentary elections that were so tainted by allegations of fraud that it was almost impossible to determine the winners. Ballot-box stuffing, voter intimidation, and distortion of final tallies were so widespread that one Afghan television station, the independent TOLO, began to run a nightly “Candid Camera” type sequence in which Afghans who had caught some of the malfeasance on cell phone cameras or other recording devices could air their footage.
The Independent Election Commission (IEC) and the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) investigated thousands of complaints, but nevertheless released “final, certified” results at the end of October, 2010.
This was overly optimistic, however.
The president, who was reported to have been unhappy with the roster delivered by the IEC, instituted a Special Court in December to adjudicate cases of fraud from the elections.
Despite the cloud hanging over the new body, Karzai inaugurated the Parliament in January, 2011. But MPs complained bitterly about the court, labeling it as the executive branch’s instrument of pressure on the legislature. Afghan and international experts rejected the court’s standing, saying that the constitution gave the ultimate responsibility for elections results to the IEC and the ECC.
For six months the Parliament barely functioned, while the court conducted its investigations. In June the court issued its verdict: In a dramatic session it announced that 62 MPs — close to a quarter of the 249-member body — would be expelled for fraud. They announced the names of the replacement candidates, setting in motion a summer of protests that all but shut down the legislature.
In August, Karzai dissolved the Special Court and returned authority to the IEC, which lost no time in revising the court’s ruling. In less than two weeks the IEC announced that nine members of the standing Parliament would be replaced. They set about doing just that, although they had to summon police to the National Assembly to bar the old MPs from entering the building, and to escort the nine new members in.
This pleased just about no one.
At present, there are a least four different bodies protesting the situation. The Coalition for the Rule of Law, a group within Parliament that boasts over 100 members, rejects any changes to the Parliament’s composition on legal grounds. The executive branch had no authority to interfere with the legislature once the IEC announced the results last October, they say.
"Our position is clear. We believe that any change in the Parliament's composition is against the law," said Zahir Qadir, the leader of the coalition "The government has used force in introducing new members to the Parliament. In our opinion this act of the government is illegitimate and a coup d’etat against the real votes of people."
Another, smaller group calling themselves the Reformists, supports the government, and is pushing for the Parliament to fall in line with the latest decision rendered by the IEC. Afghanistan must move on, they insist, and the current crisis is doing no one any good.
"The Reformists agreed with the Coalition for the Rule of Law regarding the Special Court, but now we believe that IEC's decision is appropriate and will help put an end to the crisis,” said Mawlawi Shahzada Shahid, an MP from Kunar.
But the Reformists inspire mistrust among other politicians for their close ties to the government. The leadership of the group includes the brothers of two prominent Cabinet ministers, and many see the body as a fifth-column action by the executive branch.
“The institution of the Reformists’ Parliamentary group was the result of the government’s prolonged efforts,” said political analyst Qasim Akhgar. “The government wanted to dominate the Parliament and put pressure on Coalition for the Rule of Law.”
Also staging protests are 53 candidates named by the court as replacements for those deemed guilty of fraud but whose appointments were not backed by the IEC.
And, of course, the nine candidates who were expelled are trying fiercely to be reinstated. Barakzai falls into this category.
As the various groups jostle and compete for attention, no work is being done at the Parliament.
For over a month the body was unable to assemble a quorum, meaning that no laws could be passed, no decisions adopted, no budgets approved.
The Coalition just days ago abandoned its boycott and reentered the chamber, but no one is quite sure whether this will end the crisis or merely introduce a new phase.
The big losers in this dangerous and unsavory game are, of course, the Afghan people. Not only are they being deprived of a working government, they are fast losing faith in the entire democratic process.
“The government should have accepted the results of the 2010 Parliamentary first declared by the IEC, and it should have not created the current tension,” said Jandad Spinghar, Chief Executive Director for Free and Fair Election for Afghanistan (FEFA). “The current dispute between the two branches has caused people to lose hope in free and fair elections as well as the value of their vote.”
FEFA has also expressed concern over Barakzai, saying that it supported her protest and appealed to the Afghan government to take action.
With the international effort in Afghanistan winding down after 10 long and difficult years, the failure of the Afghan government to step up and take effective control of the country is proving a stumbling block to a smooth transition.
As David Kilcullen, renowned military strategist and specialist on Counterinsurgency, or COIN, points out in his latest book, “Counterinsurgency,” the Afghan government has become a key driver of instability in the country.
“Bad behavior by government officials and power brokers creates popular rage and disillusionment,” he writes.
One of those victims of that popular rage could well be Semeen Barakzai. For her, any reform could well come too late.
Abdul Qayum Suroush is an independent journalist based in Kabul. Independent journalist Asar Hakimi also contributed to this report from Kabul.
US Drone Strike Kills Four in Northwest Pakistan
VOA News October 15, 2011
Pakistani intelligence officials say a suspected U.S. drone strike has killed at least four militants and wounded another in a tribal region near the border with Afghanistan.
Officials say the unmanned aircraft fired missiles at a compound in South Waziristan.
They say the strike targeted fighters loyal to Maulvi Nadir, a local Taliban commander responsible for cross-border attacks in Afghanistan.
Saturday's strike was the latest in a series of drone attacks targeting militants in the border areas. On Friday, a U.S. drone strike killed four militants near the town of Miran Shah in the North Waziristan tribal region.
The day before, a drone strike in the same region killed a ranking member of the militant Haqqani network.
U.S. officials have never publicly acknowledged the use of drone strikes inside Pakistan, but privately they have confirmed their existence to various news outlets. Pakistan has condemned the attacks as a violation of its sovereignty, but the strikes are believed to be carried out with the help of Pakistani intelligence.
NATO helicopter makes forced landing in S. Afghanistan
KABUL, Oct. 15 (Xinhua) -- A NATO helicopter makes forced landing in restive southern Afghanistan on Friday, the military alliance said on Saturday.
"n International Security Assistance Force CH-47 helicopter conducted a forced landing during a mission in southern Afghanistan yesterday," NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said in a statement.
The helicopter was flying a troop transport mission with 12 passengers and five aircrew members on board. Shortly after landing, another ISAF helicopter arrived on the scene and transported the passengers to a nearby ISAF facility without further incident, the statement added.
"No members of the aircrew or passengers were harmed," it said.
A maintenance team conducted an initial assessment and it appears that the forced landing was the result of a mechanical issue. No insurgent activity was reported during the landing, the statement said, adding "A complete assessment will be conducted to determine the nature of the forced landing. The aircraft was repaired on site and flew back to its operating base late last night."
A total of 30 U.S. soldiers with the ISAF, seven Afghan army commandos and an Afghan translator were killed when an ISAF CH-47 Chinook was reportedly shot down by suspected Taliban insurgents in country's eastern Wardak province on Aug. 6.
The Taliban-led insurgency has been rampant since the militant group announced to launch spring offensive from May 1 against Afghan and NATO-led troops stationed in Afghanistan.
21 insurgents killed, 19 arrested in Afghanistan: official
KABUL, Oct. 15 (Xinhua) -- The Afghan and NATO-led Coalition forces during operations in different parts of the country have killed 21 insurgents and detained 19 others over the past 24 hours, Afghan Interior Ministry said on Saturday.
"Afghan National Police (ANP), Afghan National Army and Coalition forces launched 10 joint operations in surrounding areas of the Kabul, Laghman, Parwan, Kandahar, Helmand, Nimroz, Zabul, Paktiya and Paktika province, killing 21 armed insurgents and detaining 19 others over the past 24 hours," the ministry said in a statement.
Four suspected insurgents were wounded in the same operation, the statement said, adding "During these operations, ANP also confiscated two pistols, 27 rifles, four AK-47 assault rifles, 40 boxes of machine gun bullets, 52 different types of mines, two vehicles and 120 kg narcotics."
Separately, a joint patrol of Afghan and coalition forces killed 17 insurgents in Narang district of country's eastern Kunar province Friday night, a spokesman with coalition forces in eastern region Sabawon Hotak told Xinhua on Saturday.
Afghan officials often use the word "insurgents" referring to Taliban militants, however, the militant group has yet to make comments.
Afghan rights worries after eviction of hunger striker
Reuters By Mirwais Harooni and Emma Graham-Harrison Fri Oct 14, 2011
KABUL - Afghan police have dismantled the protest camp of a hunger-striking politician and taken her to hospital, raising concerns the government may be taking a harder line on political dissent after a year of chaos and stagnation in parliament.
Former member of parliament Semin Barekzai stopped eating and moved into a tent outside parliament at the start of October to protest being stripped of her seat by poll authorities in August, nearly a year after the vote.
Her protest was into its 12th day, gathering growing Afghan and international media attention, when police abruptly ended it on Thursday night, on the order of the Interior Ministry.
It was not clear if Barekzai was continuing the hunger strike in hospital, as she could not be reached.
"There are a lot of really serious human rights violations in Afghanistan, but until now the government has been relatively tolerant of free speech, so this seems like an alarming new approach to dealing with dissent," said Heather Barr, at Human Rights Watch Afghanistan.
Hunger strikes are unusual in Afghanistan though a familiar political weapon in nearby India, and Barekzai's campaign exposed divisions on how democracy should function in the war-torn, conservative and ethnically divided country.
Top religious leaders condemned hunger strikes as un-Islamic and poll authorities said she had been fairly beaten and they could not be held responsible for her fate.
But women marched in support, and some 15 people including students and a member of parliament joined the hunger strike this week.
Barekzai's protest is the latest challenge for a troubled parliament, which over a year after a fraud marred election is still barely functioning. Her removal is likely to provoke more turmoil in the legislature.
"Some people within the parliament I can imagine going crazy about what happened, some because they support her political demands...and others because they share the use of non-violent tactics to put pressure on the government," said Fabrizio Foschino, at Afghanistan Analysts' Network.
VOLUNTARY OR FORCED?
Barekzai's supporters and the police agree that officers dismantled four tents housing the hunger strikers, but their accounts of the evening diverge otherwise.
The lawmaker who was also on hunger strike said armed police overwhelmed protesters, forced Barekzai roughly into an ambulance, and arrested some of her supporters.
"It was catastrophic," said Nelofar Ibrahimi, describing how hundreds of police -- she estimated up to 500 -- arrived around 10 p.m. (1730 GMT) and dragged away a disheveled Barekzai.
"They put her into an ambulance but with her legs still hanging out. When they closed the door she got some injuries in her legs," she added. They arrested others who had joined the hunger strike and Barekzai's husband, she added.
A police spokesman said that Barekzai went voluntarily to hospital and the tents were dismantled because there was a credible security threat against them.
"We had specific information about an attack on Barekzai and also her health was very bad so it was our duty to help her," said Hashmatullah Stanekzai, a spokesman for Kabul's police chief, who said police arrived around 8 p.m.
"A team of unarmed officers went to the tent. In a very calm conversation they persuaded Barekzai to leave the tent."
He dismissed Ibrahimi's description of hundreds of policemen, but did not say how large the team was.
Stanekzai said the Interior Ministry, which controls Afghanistan's police, ordered the "rescue" of Barekzai. The ministry could not be reached for comment on Friday.
The police account raises questions because Barekzai had repeatedly refused to go to hospital during her hunger strike, and sworn she would not eat until given back her seat in parliament, even if it caused her death.
It was not clear if she was attempting to continue her protest from a hospital bed.
Barekzai, her husband and a relative who had acted as her spokesman could not be reached on Friday, and the hospital to which she was taken blocked journalists from coming inside.
Forcing her to hospital, or forcing her to eat, would have been illegal, Barr from Human Rights Watch said.
"Taking someone to the hospital involuntarily for reasons other than a psychiatric crisis is not permitted under many different human rights conventions, which Afghanistan is a signatory to," she said.
(Editing by Martin Petty and Yoko Nishikawa)
No let-up in U.S. pressure on Pakistan
By Muhammad Tahir
ISLAMABAD, Oct. 15 (Xinhua) -- The United States is signaling no let-up in pressure on Pakistan to act against armed groups in its lawlessness tribal regions, which top American military leaders believe to pose serious threats to its forces in Afghanistan.
Besides mounting pressure, several senior American military leaders recently accused Pakistan's main intelligence agency of having links with the Taliban-linked Haqqani network, blamed for attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul on Sept. 13. Ten Afghan soldiers were killed in the 17-hour gun-battle with the heavily- armed insurgents, who had occupied a multi-story building in the hearts of Kabul.
The United States also held the group responsible for the huge truck bomb attack on the U.S. main military base in Afghanistan's Maidan Wardak province on Sept. 11, injuring around 70 U.S. soldiers. The attack coincided with the 10th anniversary of the 9/ 11 attacks in Washington and New York.
In a visible sheer frustration and anger, the top U.S. officials came with harsh verbal attacks on Pakistan after the two attacks by saying that the Pakistan's spy agency the Inter- Services Intelligence or ISI had supported the Haqqani network in both the Afghan attacks. The U.S. Secretary for Defence Leon Panetta even threatened unilateral action against the Haqqani network and other Pakistan-based armed groups.
Islamabad had reacted angrily to U.S. threats and described Panetta remarks as contrary to the bilateral cooperation in the war on terrorism.
U.S. officials claim that members of the Haqqani network use Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal area's launching pad for cross- border attacks into Afghanistan on the foreign and Afghan forces.
Days after the U.S. threats and aggressive posture, the politically-divided Pakistanis last month showed a rare unity at a conference of nearly 60 political and religious groups to dismiss the U.S. threats and threw support behind the government and the country's armed forces to defend the country. The All Parties Conference was summoned by Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani to adopt a joint stand amid fast growing U.S. threats and to send a clear message of unity to the United States.
The unexpected and quick reaction in Pakistan had forced the U. S. officials to soft their tone for days and also sent Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan March Grossman to Islamabad to reduce the tension. President Asif Ali Zardari told Ambassador Grossman that the U.S. must exercise restraint in making public statements that were adverse to bilateral relationship.
The U.S. special envoy and Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar avoided responding to questions from reporters after they stood together at a joint press stake out after their formal talks. They did so to evade any possible tough question from awaiting journalists as local media had earlier suggested that the Haqqani network would be one of the main issues in his talks with Pakistani leaders. But both the U.S. envoy and Pakistani ministers did not want to spoil the atmosphere and just read out a written statement and left the conference hall at the Foreign Ministry.
The U.S. envoy's silence on the Haqqani network in press talks in Islamabad and no mentioning of the group in the U.S. embassy's statement on Grossman visit had raised hopes that both sides have reached some sort of understanding to avoid hostile statement.
But latest statements from the U.S. Secretary for Defence Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reflect the U.S. mood that they want to keep on mounting pressure on Pakistan.
Addressing the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Leon Panetta said that terrorists in Pakistan pose a threat to the United States. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview also on Thursday that her country would continue putting more pressure on Pakistan to eliminate militancy and terrorism from the region. "We are going to press the Pakistanis even harder about being a positive player in this process," she said.
Statement from the U.S. ministers show that the United States is no mood to show any softness for Pakistan until it takes actions against the armed group to its satisfaction. But criticism at Pakistan and its agencies in the media will not be considered helpful as Pakistanis are sensitive to public condemnation and the U.S. aggressive posture will never be helpful for their bilateral relationship. Panetta and Clinton statements show that the United States is completely ignoring Islamabad's quest not to use media for public condemnation of Pakistan.
Road accident kills 3, injuring 43 in N Afghanistan
KUNDUZ, Afghanistan, Oct. 15 (Xinhua) -- Three people were killed and 43 others injured Saturday when a passenger bus turned over in northern Afghanistan's Kunduz province, police said.
"A passenger bus was traveling from neighboring Takhar province to Kabul, but the ill-fated bus turned turtle at about 6:30 a.m. local time Saturday as it lost control on the highway in Ali Abad district of Kunduz province. As a result three people were killed and 43 others injured," a provincial traffic police chief Abdul Karim Langari told Xinhua.
He said three persons including the driver were killed on the spot and five of the injured passengers were in critical condition, adding such tragic incidents are usually caused by reckless driving.
A similar road accident in southern Kandahar province in August left 35 passengers dead and 24 others injured.
Reading between the lines in the Afghan war
The Globe and Mail By Graeme Smith Friday, Oct. 14, 2011
Istanbul - Journalists who follow the war in Afghanistan have grown accustomed to the steady drip of NATO press releases. These bulletins are sometimes useful, but the majority of them get ignored because they are unimportant, or propagandistic.
The International Security Assistance Force’s official Twitter feed recently assured readers that Afghanistan is now a land without massacres, which is not the way many reporters experienced the country in recent years.
Reading that tweet made me remember a sweltering day in May, 2007, when I saw pickup trucks carting away the human wreckage left behind by the nighttime operations of a U.S. Special Forces group named Task Force Scorpion. It was hard to distinguish the injured from the dead, heaped together in the trucks that rolled into Sangin, a town in southern Helmand province, but the official count was 21 civilians killed.
Perhaps that’s not a “massacre,” by Afghan standards, but it was a reminder of the parallel war that rarely gets detailed in press releases. Two scholarly reports have recently tried to delve into the subject of night raids by elite military units: last month, Open Society Foundations and The Liaison Office published this study; and this week my friends Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn released this analysis of capture-or-kill operations.
The latter study combed through 3,771 press releases and looked for patterns in the way NATO talks about its actions. After boiling down the thin gruel in the official statements, the database revealed some interesting stuff: reports of raids increased during General David Petraeus’ tenure as the top commander in Afghanistan, and have declined since his departure this summer.
The analysis also cast doubt on the way NATO touted its successful strikes against so-called insurgent “leaders,” pointing out that during some periods one in every 20 kills was declared a victory against the Taliban leadership. (More analysis of the data is here.)
The study has prompted an unusual reply from the ISAF press office in Kabul.
The gist of the latest press release is that, in general, press releases are not a reliable barometer of reality. “Release of information in insurgent warfare is not always made public,” the ISAF release said, with the usual military flair for language.
Interestingly, the military statement concluded with a call for future analysis to be based on more complete data. That was the same conclusion emphasized by the study authors. The AAN has responded to NATO here.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com
VOA News October 15, 2011
Armed militants launched a suicide attack on a U.S.-run base in northeastern Afghanistan, killing two people.
A provincial police spokesman says four suicide bombers targeted the base of the U.S. Provincial Reconstruction Team in an attack early Saturday morning in Panjshir province.
Officials say two civilians were killed in the bombing, in addition to the militants. Two security guards were wounded.
The Taliban has claimed responsibility, saying the militants attacked on foot and with an explosive-filled vehicle.
A NATO spokesman confirmed the incident and said there were no foreign casualties.
Elsewhere Saturday, two militants were killed and three wounded when the bombs they were assembling prematurely exploded at a house in southern Kandahar province.
A New Pakistan Policy: Containment
The New York Times By BRUCE O. RIEDEL October 15, 2011
Washington - AMERICA needs a new policy for dealing with Pakistan. First, we must recognize that the two countries’ strategic interests are in conflict, not harmony, and will remain that way as long as Pakistan’s army controls Pakistan’s strategic policies. We must contain the Pakistani Army’s ambitions until real civilian rule returns and Pakistanis set a new direction for their foreign policy.
As Adm. Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee last month, Pakistan provides critical sanctuary and support to the Afghan insurgency that we are trying to suppress. Taliban leaders meet under Pakistani protection even as we try to capture or kill them.
In 2009, I led a policy review for President Obama on Pakistan and Afghanistan. At the time, Al Qaeda was operating with virtual impunity in Pakistan, and its ally Lashkar-e-Taiba had just attacked the Indian city of Mumbai and killed at least 163 people, including 6 Americans, with help from Pakistani intelligence. Under no illusions, Mr. Obama tried to improve relations with Pakistan by increasing aid and dialogue; he also expanded drone operations to fight terrorist groups that Pakistan would not fight on its own.
It was right to try engagement, but now the approach needs reshaping. We will have to persevere in Afghanistan in the face of opposition by Pakistan.
The generals who run Pakistan have not abandoned their obsession with challenging India. They tolerate terrorists at home, seek a Taliban victory in Afghanistan and are building the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal. They have sidelined and intimidated civilian leaders elected in 2008. They seem to think Pakistan is invulnerable, because they control NATO’s supply line from Karachi to Kabul and have nuclear weapons.
The generals also think time is on their side — that NATO is doomed to give up in Afghanistan, leaving them free to act as they wish there. So they have concluded that the sooner America leaves, the better it will be for Pakistan. They want Americans and Europeans to believe the war is hopeless, so they encourage the Taliban and other militant groups to speed the withdrawal with spectacular attacks, like the Sept. 13 raid on the United States Embassy in Kabul, which killed 16 Afghan police officers and civilians.
It is time to move to a policy of containment, which would mean a more hostile relationship. But it should be a focused hostility, aimed not at hurting Pakistan’s people but at holding its army and intelligence branches accountable. When we learn that an officer from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, is aiding terrorism, whether in Afghanistan or India, we should put him on wanted lists, sanction him at the United Nations and, if he is dangerous enough, track him down. Putting sanctions on organizations in Pakistan has not worked in the past, but sanctioning individuals has — as the nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan could attest.
Offering Pakistan more trade while reducing aid makes sense. When we extend traditional aid, media outlets with ties to the ISI cite the aid to weave conspiracy theories that alienate Pakistanis from us. Mr. Obama should instead announce that he is cutting tariffs on Pakistani textiles to or below the level that India and China enjoy; that would strengthen entrepreneurs and women, two groups who are outside the army’s control and who are interested in peace.
Military assistance to Pakistan should be cut deeply. Regular contacts between our officers and theirs can continue, but under no delusion that we are allies.
Osama bin Laden’s death confirmed that we can’t rely on Pakistan to take out prominent terrorists on its soil. We will still need bases in Afghanistan from which to act when we see a threat in Pakistan. But drones should be used judiciously, for very important targets.
In Afghanistan, we should not have false hopes for a political solution. We can hope that top figures among the Quetta Shura — Afghan Taliban leaders who are sheltered in Quetta, Pakistan — will be delivered to the bargaining table, but that is unlikely, since the Quetta leadership assassinated Burhanuddin Rabbani, the leader of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council and a former Afghan president, last month. The ISI will veto any Taliban peace efforts it opposes, which means any it doesn’t control. Rather than hoping for ISI help, we need to continue to build an Afghan Army that can control the insurgency with long-term NATO assistance and minimal combat troops.
Strategic dialogue with India about Pakistan is essential because it would focus the Pakistani Army’s mind. India and Pakistan are trying to improve trade and transportation links severed after they became independent in 1947, and we should encourage that. We should also increase intelligence cooperation against terrorist targets in Pakistan. And we should encourage India to be more conciliatory on Kashmir, by easing border controls and releasing prisoners.
America and Pakistan have had a tempestuous relationship for decades. For far too long we have banked on the Pakistani Army to protect our interests. Now we need to contain that army’s aggressive instincts, while helping those who want a progressive Pakistan and keeping up the fight against terrorism.
Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. officer and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the author of “Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and the Future of the Global Jihad.”
Parliamentarian’s hunger strike highlights Afghan political crisis
A woman’s life hangs in the balance as the Afghan government continues to engage in political brinksmanship.
Global Post By Jean MacKenzie and Abdul Qayum Suroush October 14, 2011
KABUL, Afghanistan - Semeen Barakzai lies in a white tent outside the Parliament building in Kabul.
Having refused food and liquids for more than 11 days, she is very weak. Her kidneys are failing, she has been rushed to hospital on one occasion, and her family, friends and supporters fear for her life.
“My sole aim is to ensure justice,” she said in an interview several days ago, her voice even then barely above a whisper. “Either my appeal will be accepted by the appropriate national and international entities or my life will end.”
Barakzai is protesting what she sees as illegal and unjust actions by President Hamid Karzai's government against her and colleagues in Parliament.
She was one of nine MPs expelled from the legislature for alleged fraud in a long-running clash between the executive and legislative branches that has paralyzed the government for more than a year. Many believe the conflict could well lead to a complete collapse of the system if it is not resolved soon.
Karzai and a host of other government officials have visited Barakzai her tent to plead for an end to her hunger strike and to offer reassurances that a solution will be found. But nothing has yet been done, said her husband, Mohammad Barakzai. The couple is not prepared to take empty promises.
“The government is not considering our appeal, so we are not appealing to the government any more,” he said. “Semeen would have not been in this critical condition if the government had considered her request.”
Various organizations, including the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) have agitated for Karzai to take action.
Barakzai wants her case, and those of the other eights MPs who were expelled, to be reopened, with a full and fair accounting to the Afghan people. So far, this has not been done.
The problem began in September, 2010, with parliamentary elections that were so tainted by allegations of fraud that it was almost impossible to determine the winners. Ballot-box stuffing, voter intimidation, and distortion of final tallies were so widespread that one Afghan television station, the independent TOLO, began to run a nightly “Candid Camera” type sequence in which Afghans who had caught some of the malfeasance on cell phone cameras or other recording devices could air their footage.
The Independent Election Commission (IEC) and the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) investigated thousands of complaints, but nevertheless released “final, certified” results at the end of October, 2010.
This was overly optimistic, however.
The president, who was reported to have been unhappy with the roster delivered by the IEC, instituted a Special Court in December to adjudicate cases of fraud from the elections.
Despite the cloud hanging over the new body, Karzai inaugurated the Parliament in January, 2011. But MPs complained bitterly about the court, labeling it as the executive branch’s instrument of pressure on the legislature. Afghan and international experts rejected the court’s standing, saying that the constitution gave the ultimate responsibility for elections results to the IEC and the ECC.
For six months the Parliament barely functioned, while the court conducted its investigations. In June the court issued its verdict: In a dramatic session it announced that 62 MPs — close to a quarter of the 249-member body — would be expelled for fraud. They announced the names of the replacement candidates, setting in motion a summer of protests that all but shut down the legislature.
In August, Karzai dissolved the Special Court and returned authority to the IEC, which lost no time in revising the court’s ruling. In less than two weeks the IEC announced that nine members of the standing Parliament would be replaced. They set about doing just that, although they had to summon police to the National Assembly to bar the old MPs from entering the building, and to escort the nine new members in.
This pleased just about no one.
At present, there are a least four different bodies protesting the situation. The Coalition for the Rule of Law, a group within Parliament that boasts over 100 members, rejects any changes to the Parliament’s composition on legal grounds. The executive branch had no authority to interfere with the legislature once the IEC announced the results last October, they say.
"Our position is clear. We believe that any change in the Parliament's composition is against the law," said Zahir Qadir, the leader of the coalition "The government has used force in introducing new members to the Parliament. In our opinion this act of the government is illegitimate and a coup d’etat against the real votes of people."
Another, smaller group calling themselves the Reformists, supports the government, and is pushing for the Parliament to fall in line with the latest decision rendered by the IEC. Afghanistan must move on, they insist, and the current crisis is doing no one any good.
"The Reformists agreed with the Coalition for the Rule of Law regarding the Special Court, but now we believe that IEC's decision is appropriate and will help put an end to the crisis,” said Mawlawi Shahzada Shahid, an MP from Kunar.
But the Reformists inspire mistrust among other politicians for their close ties to the government. The leadership of the group includes the brothers of two prominent Cabinet ministers, and many see the body as a fifth-column action by the executive branch.
“The institution of the Reformists’ Parliamentary group was the result of the government’s prolonged efforts,” said political analyst Qasim Akhgar. “The government wanted to dominate the Parliament and put pressure on Coalition for the Rule of Law.”
Also staging protests are 53 candidates named by the court as replacements for those deemed guilty of fraud but whose appointments were not backed by the IEC.
And, of course, the nine candidates who were expelled are trying fiercely to be reinstated. Barakzai falls into this category.
As the various groups jostle and compete for attention, no work is being done at the Parliament.
For over a month the body was unable to assemble a quorum, meaning that no laws could be passed, no decisions adopted, no budgets approved.
The Coalition just days ago abandoned its boycott and reentered the chamber, but no one is quite sure whether this will end the crisis or merely introduce a new phase.
The big losers in this dangerous and unsavory game are, of course, the Afghan people. Not only are they being deprived of a working government, they are fast losing faith in the entire democratic process.
“The government should have accepted the results of the 2010 Parliamentary first declared by the IEC, and it should have not created the current tension,” said Jandad Spinghar, Chief Executive Director for Free and Fair Election for Afghanistan (FEFA). “The current dispute between the two branches has caused people to lose hope in free and fair elections as well as the value of their vote.”
FEFA has also expressed concern over Barakzai, saying that it supported her protest and appealed to the Afghan government to take action.
With the international effort in Afghanistan winding down after 10 long and difficult years, the failure of the Afghan government to step up and take effective control of the country is proving a stumbling block to a smooth transition.
As David Kilcullen, renowned military strategist and specialist on Counterinsurgency, or COIN, points out in his latest book, “Counterinsurgency,” the Afghan government has become a key driver of instability in the country.
“Bad behavior by government officials and power brokers creates popular rage and disillusionment,” he writes.
One of those victims of that popular rage could well be Semeen Barakzai. For her, any reform could well come too late.
Abdul Qayum Suroush is an independent journalist based in Kabul. Independent journalist Asar Hakimi also contributed to this report from Kabul.
US Drone Strike Kills Four in Northwest Pakistan
VOA News October 15, 2011
Pakistani intelligence officials say a suspected U.S. drone strike has killed at least four militants and wounded another in a tribal region near the border with Afghanistan.
Officials say the unmanned aircraft fired missiles at a compound in South Waziristan.
They say the strike targeted fighters loyal to Maulvi Nadir, a local Taliban commander responsible for cross-border attacks in Afghanistan.
Saturday's strike was the latest in a series of drone attacks targeting militants in the border areas. On Friday, a U.S. drone strike killed four militants near the town of Miran Shah in the North Waziristan tribal region.
The day before, a drone strike in the same region killed a ranking member of the militant Haqqani network.
U.S. officials have never publicly acknowledged the use of drone strikes inside Pakistan, but privately they have confirmed their existence to various news outlets. Pakistan has condemned the attacks as a violation of its sovereignty, but the strikes are believed to be carried out with the help of Pakistani intelligence.
NATO helicopter makes forced landing in S. Afghanistan
KABUL, Oct. 15 (Xinhua) -- A NATO helicopter makes forced landing in restive southern Afghanistan on Friday, the military alliance said on Saturday.
"n International Security Assistance Force CH-47 helicopter conducted a forced landing during a mission in southern Afghanistan yesterday," NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said in a statement.
The helicopter was flying a troop transport mission with 12 passengers and five aircrew members on board. Shortly after landing, another ISAF helicopter arrived on the scene and transported the passengers to a nearby ISAF facility without further incident, the statement added.
"No members of the aircrew or passengers were harmed," it said.
A maintenance team conducted an initial assessment and it appears that the forced landing was the result of a mechanical issue. No insurgent activity was reported during the landing, the statement said, adding "A complete assessment will be conducted to determine the nature of the forced landing. The aircraft was repaired on site and flew back to its operating base late last night."
A total of 30 U.S. soldiers with the ISAF, seven Afghan army commandos and an Afghan translator were killed when an ISAF CH-47 Chinook was reportedly shot down by suspected Taliban insurgents in country's eastern Wardak province on Aug. 6.
The Taliban-led insurgency has been rampant since the militant group announced to launch spring offensive from May 1 against Afghan and NATO-led troops stationed in Afghanistan.
21 insurgents killed, 19 arrested in Afghanistan: official
KABUL, Oct. 15 (Xinhua) -- The Afghan and NATO-led Coalition forces during operations in different parts of the country have killed 21 insurgents and detained 19 others over the past 24 hours, Afghan Interior Ministry said on Saturday.
"Afghan National Police (ANP), Afghan National Army and Coalition forces launched 10 joint operations in surrounding areas of the Kabul, Laghman, Parwan, Kandahar, Helmand, Nimroz, Zabul, Paktiya and Paktika province, killing 21 armed insurgents and detaining 19 others over the past 24 hours," the ministry said in a statement.
Four suspected insurgents were wounded in the same operation, the statement said, adding "During these operations, ANP also confiscated two pistols, 27 rifles, four AK-47 assault rifles, 40 boxes of machine gun bullets, 52 different types of mines, two vehicles and 120 kg narcotics."
Separately, a joint patrol of Afghan and coalition forces killed 17 insurgents in Narang district of country's eastern Kunar province Friday night, a spokesman with coalition forces in eastern region Sabawon Hotak told Xinhua on Saturday.
Afghan officials often use the word "insurgents" referring to Taliban militants, however, the militant group has yet to make comments.
Afghan rights worries after eviction of hunger striker
Reuters By Mirwais Harooni and Emma Graham-Harrison Fri Oct 14, 2011
KABUL - Afghan police have dismantled the protest camp of a hunger-striking politician and taken her to hospital, raising concerns the government may be taking a harder line on political dissent after a year of chaos and stagnation in parliament.
Former member of parliament Semin Barekzai stopped eating and moved into a tent outside parliament at the start of October to protest being stripped of her seat by poll authorities in August, nearly a year after the vote.
Her protest was into its 12th day, gathering growing Afghan and international media attention, when police abruptly ended it on Thursday night, on the order of the Interior Ministry.
It was not clear if Barekzai was continuing the hunger strike in hospital, as she could not be reached.
"There are a lot of really serious human rights violations in Afghanistan, but until now the government has been relatively tolerant of free speech, so this seems like an alarming new approach to dealing with dissent," said Heather Barr, at Human Rights Watch Afghanistan.
Hunger strikes are unusual in Afghanistan though a familiar political weapon in nearby India, and Barekzai's campaign exposed divisions on how democracy should function in the war-torn, conservative and ethnically divided country.
Top religious leaders condemned hunger strikes as un-Islamic and poll authorities said she had been fairly beaten and they could not be held responsible for her fate.
But women marched in support, and some 15 people including students and a member of parliament joined the hunger strike this week.
Barekzai's protest is the latest challenge for a troubled parliament, which over a year after a fraud marred election is still barely functioning. Her removal is likely to provoke more turmoil in the legislature.
"Some people within the parliament I can imagine going crazy about what happened, some because they support her political demands...and others because they share the use of non-violent tactics to put pressure on the government," said Fabrizio Foschino, at Afghanistan Analysts' Network.
VOLUNTARY OR FORCED?
Barekzai's supporters and the police agree that officers dismantled four tents housing the hunger strikers, but their accounts of the evening diverge otherwise.
The lawmaker who was also on hunger strike said armed police overwhelmed protesters, forced Barekzai roughly into an ambulance, and arrested some of her supporters.
"It was catastrophic," said Nelofar Ibrahimi, describing how hundreds of police -- she estimated up to 500 -- arrived around 10 p.m. (1730 GMT) and dragged away a disheveled Barekzai.
"They put her into an ambulance but with her legs still hanging out. When they closed the door she got some injuries in her legs," she added. They arrested others who had joined the hunger strike and Barekzai's husband, she added.
A police spokesman said that Barekzai went voluntarily to hospital and the tents were dismantled because there was a credible security threat against them.
"We had specific information about an attack on Barekzai and also her health was very bad so it was our duty to help her," said Hashmatullah Stanekzai, a spokesman for Kabul's police chief, who said police arrived around 8 p.m.
"A team of unarmed officers went to the tent. In a very calm conversation they persuaded Barekzai to leave the tent."
He dismissed Ibrahimi's description of hundreds of policemen, but did not say how large the team was.
Stanekzai said the Interior Ministry, which controls Afghanistan's police, ordered the "rescue" of Barekzai. The ministry could not be reached for comment on Friday.
The police account raises questions because Barekzai had repeatedly refused to go to hospital during her hunger strike, and sworn she would not eat until given back her seat in parliament, even if it caused her death.
It was not clear if she was attempting to continue her protest from a hospital bed.
Barekzai, her husband and a relative who had acted as her spokesman could not be reached on Friday, and the hospital to which she was taken blocked journalists from coming inside.
Forcing her to hospital, or forcing her to eat, would have been illegal, Barr from Human Rights Watch said.
"Taking someone to the hospital involuntarily for reasons other than a psychiatric crisis is not permitted under many different human rights conventions, which Afghanistan is a signatory to," she said.
(Editing by Martin Petty and Yoko Nishikawa)
No let-up in U.S. pressure on Pakistan
By Muhammad Tahir
ISLAMABAD, Oct. 15 (Xinhua) -- The United States is signaling no let-up in pressure on Pakistan to act against armed groups in its lawlessness tribal regions, which top American military leaders believe to pose serious threats to its forces in Afghanistan.
Besides mounting pressure, several senior American military leaders recently accused Pakistan's main intelligence agency of having links with the Taliban-linked Haqqani network, blamed for attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul on Sept. 13. Ten Afghan soldiers were killed in the 17-hour gun-battle with the heavily- armed insurgents, who had occupied a multi-story building in the hearts of Kabul.
The United States also held the group responsible for the huge truck bomb attack on the U.S. main military base in Afghanistan's Maidan Wardak province on Sept. 11, injuring around 70 U.S. soldiers. The attack coincided with the 10th anniversary of the 9/ 11 attacks in Washington and New York.
In a visible sheer frustration and anger, the top U.S. officials came with harsh verbal attacks on Pakistan after the two attacks by saying that the Pakistan's spy agency the Inter- Services Intelligence or ISI had supported the Haqqani network in both the Afghan attacks. The U.S. Secretary for Defence Leon Panetta even threatened unilateral action against the Haqqani network and other Pakistan-based armed groups.
Islamabad had reacted angrily to U.S. threats and described Panetta remarks as contrary to the bilateral cooperation in the war on terrorism.
U.S. officials claim that members of the Haqqani network use Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal area's launching pad for cross- border attacks into Afghanistan on the foreign and Afghan forces.
Days after the U.S. threats and aggressive posture, the politically-divided Pakistanis last month showed a rare unity at a conference of nearly 60 political and religious groups to dismiss the U.S. threats and threw support behind the government and the country's armed forces to defend the country. The All Parties Conference was summoned by Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani to adopt a joint stand amid fast growing U.S. threats and to send a clear message of unity to the United States.
The unexpected and quick reaction in Pakistan had forced the U. S. officials to soft their tone for days and also sent Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan March Grossman to Islamabad to reduce the tension. President Asif Ali Zardari told Ambassador Grossman that the U.S. must exercise restraint in making public statements that were adverse to bilateral relationship.
The U.S. special envoy and Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar avoided responding to questions from reporters after they stood together at a joint press stake out after their formal talks. They did so to evade any possible tough question from awaiting journalists as local media had earlier suggested that the Haqqani network would be one of the main issues in his talks with Pakistani leaders. But both the U.S. envoy and Pakistani ministers did not want to spoil the atmosphere and just read out a written statement and left the conference hall at the Foreign Ministry.
The U.S. envoy's silence on the Haqqani network in press talks in Islamabad and no mentioning of the group in the U.S. embassy's statement on Grossman visit had raised hopes that both sides have reached some sort of understanding to avoid hostile statement.
But latest statements from the U.S. Secretary for Defence Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reflect the U.S. mood that they want to keep on mounting pressure on Pakistan.
Addressing the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Leon Panetta said that terrorists in Pakistan pose a threat to the United States. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview also on Thursday that her country would continue putting more pressure on Pakistan to eliminate militancy and terrorism from the region. "We are going to press the Pakistanis even harder about being a positive player in this process," she said.
Statement from the U.S. ministers show that the United States is no mood to show any softness for Pakistan until it takes actions against the armed group to its satisfaction. But criticism at Pakistan and its agencies in the media will not be considered helpful as Pakistanis are sensitive to public condemnation and the U.S. aggressive posture will never be helpful for their bilateral relationship. Panetta and Clinton statements show that the United States is completely ignoring Islamabad's quest not to use media for public condemnation of Pakistan.
Road accident kills 3, injuring 43 in N Afghanistan
KUNDUZ, Afghanistan, Oct. 15 (Xinhua) -- Three people were killed and 43 others injured Saturday when a passenger bus turned over in northern Afghanistan's Kunduz province, police said.
"A passenger bus was traveling from neighboring Takhar province to Kabul, but the ill-fated bus turned turtle at about 6:30 a.m. local time Saturday as it lost control on the highway in Ali Abad district of Kunduz province. As a result three people were killed and 43 others injured," a provincial traffic police chief Abdul Karim Langari told Xinhua.
He said three persons including the driver were killed on the spot and five of the injured passengers were in critical condition, adding such tragic incidents are usually caused by reckless driving.
A similar road accident in southern Kandahar province in August left 35 passengers dead and 24 others injured.
Reading between the lines in the Afghan war
The Globe and Mail By Graeme Smith Friday, Oct. 14, 2011
Istanbul - Journalists who follow the war in Afghanistan have grown accustomed to the steady drip of NATO press releases. These bulletins are sometimes useful, but the majority of them get ignored because they are unimportant, or propagandistic.
The International Security Assistance Force’s official Twitter feed recently assured readers that Afghanistan is now a land without massacres, which is not the way many reporters experienced the country in recent years.
Reading that tweet made me remember a sweltering day in May, 2007, when I saw pickup trucks carting away the human wreckage left behind by the nighttime operations of a U.S. Special Forces group named Task Force Scorpion. It was hard to distinguish the injured from the dead, heaped together in the trucks that rolled into Sangin, a town in southern Helmand province, but the official count was 21 civilians killed.
Perhaps that’s not a “massacre,” by Afghan standards, but it was a reminder of the parallel war that rarely gets detailed in press releases. Two scholarly reports have recently tried to delve into the subject of night raids by elite military units: last month, Open Society Foundations and The Liaison Office published this study; and this week my friends Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn released this analysis of capture-or-kill operations.
The latter study combed through 3,771 press releases and looked for patterns in the way NATO talks about its actions. After boiling down the thin gruel in the official statements, the database revealed some interesting stuff: reports of raids increased during General David Petraeus’ tenure as the top commander in Afghanistan, and have declined since his departure this summer.
The analysis also cast doubt on the way NATO touted its successful strikes against so-called insurgent “leaders,” pointing out that during some periods one in every 20 kills was declared a victory against the Taliban leadership. (More analysis of the data is here.)
The study has prompted an unusual reply from the ISAF press office in Kabul.
The gist of the latest press release is that, in general, press releases are not a reliable barometer of reality. “Release of information in insurgent warfare is not always made public,” the ISAF release said, with the usual military flair for language.
Interestingly, the military statement concluded with a call for future analysis to be based on more complete data. That was the same conclusion emphasized by the study authors. The AAN has responded to NATO here.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com