Tweet
NATO: Pakistan may be unwelcome at Afghan War summit
ABC News By Olivier Knox May 11, 2012
When President Barack Obama welcomes NATO leaders to Chicago in ten days for a high-stakes summit on the war in Afghanistan, there could be a big gap in the alliance's talks on strategy — a hole the size and shape of Pakistan.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen strongly suggested at his monthly press conference on Friday that Pakistan would not be welcome at the May 20-21 gathering unless it reopens key supply routes into Afghanistan.
"We have actually invited a number of countries from the region -- neighbors of Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Russia -- because they provide important transit arrangements to the benefit of our operation," he said.
"But, as you also know, our transit routes through Pakistan are currently blocked so we have to continue our dialogue with Pakistan with a view to finding a solution to that because that's really a matter of concern," Rasmussen said.
The secretary general also echoed past statements from leaders like President Barack Obama that no Afghanistan war strategy can ultimately be successful without Pakistan's help.
"If we are to ensure long-term peace and stability in Afghanistan, we also need a positive engagement of Pakistan," he said.
White House officials declined to comment on the record about Rasmussen's comments. But an administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Yahoo News that "The U.S. and NATO want to see these lines opened up, and it would be preferable to have Pakistan participating in Chicago."
"But we'll have to see what progress Pakistan can make in the coming days to determine whether they might ultimately be issued an invitation," the official said. Rasmussen's comments came two weeks after the Pentagon released an Afghanistan war progress report that highlighted "both long-term and acute challenges" of the conflict, and warned that the Taliban and their al-Qaida allies "still operate with impunity from sanctuaries in Pakistan."
"The insurgency's safe haven in Pakistan, as well as the limited capacity of the Afghan government, remain the biggest risks to the process of turning security gains into a durable and sustainable Afghanistan," according to the report.
The summit in Chicago aims to fine-turn the alliance's strategy in Afghanistan, which calls for shifting the burdens of securing the strife-torn country to local forces and withdrawing NATO's combat troops by the end of 2014. Obama paid an unannounced visit to Afghanistan May 1 and signed an agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzai that could have some American troops stay there until 2024 to train local forces and carry out counter-terrorism strikes.
"In Chicago, the international community will express support for this plan and for Afghanistan's future," Obama said in a televised speech from Bagram Air Base. "And I have made it clear to its neighbor -- Pakistan -- that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Pakistan's sovereignty, interests and democratic institutions."
Obama met with Pakistan President ?Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani March 27 on the sidelines of a summit in Seoul and acknowledged "strains" in relations between Washington and Islamabad.
Pakistan closed routes used to supply NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, after a NATO air strike into Pakistani territory in November killed 24 Pakistani troops. Islamabad wants a formal apology from the United States and has pushed for an end to drone strikes on its soil.
"It is in the interest of Pakistan for a stable, peaceful, prosperous, independent, sovereign Afghanistan," Gilani said as he met with Obama. "We want stability in Afghanistan."
"If there is a stability in Afghanistan it's a stability in Pakistan, and peace for Afghanistan and Pakistan," the prime minister said. "We want to work together with you to have all the peace, prosperity and progress of the whole world."
Speaking to reporters after those talks, Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes, hinted at the same conditions for Pakistan's presence in Chicago.
"The President and Prime Minister also agreed that as cooperation on our shared interest increases, the United States would welcome the potential participation of Pakistan in the ISAF summit in Chicago in May," he said.
NATO head urges Pakistan to open transit routes in time for summit
Reuters Fri May 11, 2012
BRUSSELS - NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen suggested on Friday that Pakistan could miss out on important talks on the future of Afghanistan if it fails to reopen supply routes in time to secure a place at a NATO summit in Chicago on May 20-21.
Speaking at a news conference, Rasmussen made no explicit reference to excluding Pakistan - which closed transit routes to Afghanistan after 24 of its soldiers were killed in a NATO cross-border air attack last November.
But he noted that other countries providing supply routes to NATO had been invited to the summit, which will map out a future for Afghanistan after most foreign combat troops are withdrawn at the end of 2014.
"As I mentioned we have actually invited a number of countries from the region, neighbors of Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Russia, because they provide important transit arrangements to the benefit of our operation," he said in response to a question.
"But as you also know our transit routes through Pakistan are currently blocked so we have to continue our dialogue with Pakistan with a view to finding a solution to that because that's really a matter of concern."
Pakistan has demanded a formal apology from the United States for the cross-border attack before it reopens the supply routes, and has also called for an end to U.S. drone strikes on its tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.
With neither of those demands likely to be met, the government faces the choice of making an embarrassing climbdown - politically tricky at time anti-Americanism is running high in Pakistan - or continuing to hold out.
Pakistan boycotted an international conference on Afghanistan in Bonn in December in protest against the NATO air strikes.
(Reporting by Sebastian Moffett)
U.S. lawmakers want Haqqani named "terrorist" group
Reuters Fri May 11, 2012
WASHINGTON - The leaders of congressional intelligence committees, who recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan, urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday to immediately designate the militant Haqqani network as a "terrorist" group.
U.S. officials blame the al Qaeda-linked network for attacks in Afghanistan including assaults on embassies and the parliament in Kabul. The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, called the Haqqani group a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's intelligence service.
The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees, in a letter to Clinton, said their trip to Afghanistan last week reaffirmed concerns about the network.
"It was clear that the Haqqani Network continues to launch sensational and indiscriminate attacks against U.S. interests in Afghanistan and the group poses a continuing threat to innocent men, women, and children in the region," the letter said.
In the six months since the State Department said in November it was engaged in a final review, "the Haqqanis have continued to attack U.S. troops and the U.S. Embassy in Kabul," the lawmakers wrote.
The letter said the administration may have been reluctant to designate the network as a "terrorist" group while trying to negotiate a reconciliation agreement with the Taliban. But U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker told the lawmakers last week there have been no such talks since late last year and Afghan President Hamid Karzai has opposed their continuation.
The letter, signed by senators Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss and Representatives Mike Rogers and C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, said there was no reason not to move forward on the designation.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the lawmakers' letter had been received, and that the review of the potential designation was still under way.
But she pointed out that many key Haqqani leaders had already been targeted by individual designations, freezing any U.S.-based assets they might have and barring any U.S. citizen from transactions with them.
"As we continue our review we consider it absolutely essential to designate individuals because that allows us to pursue the assets of individuals rather than have to sort of try to divine who might be covered by a blanket designation," Nuland said.
(Reporting By Tabassum Zakaria; additional reporting by Andrew Quinn; Editing by Jim Loney)
'Taliban are Pakistani military without uniform'
DW 11/05/2012
In the wake of the first anniversary of Osama Bin Laden's killing by American elite troops, DW takes a closer look at Pakistan's "other" war in a rare interview with a prominent Baloch leader.
Hyrbyar Marri is the fifth son of Nawab Khair Baksh Marri, a veteran national leader and the head of the largest Baloch clan. In the late 1990s Hyrbar Marri went into exile in Britain. In 2007, he was arrested under a warrant issued by former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and held in Belmarsh - a maximum security prison in southeast London. Prominent British human rights advocates such as Peter Thatchell campaigned for Marri and accused the British executive of collaborating with Musharraf's regime. Marri was eventually acquitted in 2008 by a British jury and remains in Britain where he has recently been granted asylum.
DW: What's the current situation in Pakistani-controlled Balochistan?
Hyrbyar Marri: Islamabad wants access to the Baloch land to fill it with settlers and steal our resources. In the meantime, our people are being picked up by the Pakistani secret services and their dead bodies appear a few days later, bearing torture marks, cigarette burns and slogans -"long live Pakistan"- carved on their bodies with knives by the intelligence agencies. East Balochistan (under Pakistan control) was an independent state for nine months until it was occupied by Pakistan in March 1948. Since then we've been subjected to a genocide in slow motion under Islamabad's boot, a process of extermination that has left our language, culture and identity on the brink of extinction.
Some Baloch are asking for self-determination but you've demanded independence. Why is that?
Asking for self-determination equals to accepting that we've been part of Pakistan on a legal base and that we now want to decide whether we want to remain or leave. In my opinion, that's like denying the fact that we've been occupied for over 60 years. We declared our independence even before Pakistan did so today many Baloch are asking for independence because that was actually our status before we were occupied.
You reject parliamentary politics and many people argue that you support the armed struggle, and even lead it. What's your stance on that?
I reject parliamentary politics as they are understood today, As an occupied land, Balochistan's regional parliament endorses occupation. As for the armed struggle, I'm a man of peace but I also think that every nation has the right to defend themselves from any aggression, a right which is actually recognized by the United Nations. The International community should intervene and help us solve the issue through peaceful means instead of forcing us to fight against the invaders.
Why is the international community doing nothing about this issue?
Because the international community has been historically blackmailed by Pakistan and Iran by calling us "terrorists" and even "religious extremists." Nonetheless, I think that the West is now beginning to understand that it's very much the other way round: The Baloch are historically a secular people and it's actually Pakistan that's been backing religious extremists in the whole area to fulfil their agenda in the whole region, including Afghanistan. The paradox is that these fanatic groups were initially backed by Western powers and, today such groups have become a nightmare for everybody and especially for the Baloch.
A British Red Cross worker was killed in Balochistan by the Taliban recently. How do you feel about this?
The Taliban are basically Pakistani military without uniform. They started beheading westerners after 9/11 but we were being beheaded by these religious butchers long ago. We have informed the International community about the evil intentions of the ISI - the Pakistani secret services - but our plea has been stubbornly ignored. There is still time for the West to support the Baloch freedom movement if they want to stop the spread of religious madness in the region.
How would an eventual American withdrawal from Afghanistan affect Balochistan?
I have no doubt that the levels of violence against us will increase when the Americans leave Afghanistan. There'll be even less space for secular people as ourselves. This is one of the reasons why an independent Balochistan would not only be good for us but also for the rest of the world. As we are secular people we would not allow extremism coming from Pakistan, Iran or Afghanistan.
You ask for a foreign intervention but is such a move plausible in a nuclear country like Pakistan?
The Geneva Convention doesn't mention any exception should be made if a country has nuclear weapons or not. If a nuclear power occupies a country, there should be a resolution for their pullout. Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Gillani has even spoken about conducting a referendum in Balochistan but, tell me, when the French, the English, etc pulled out from their colonies, was there any referendum whatsoever? We're also a colony so Islamabad should leave without any pre-conditions. The only point to negotiate with Pakistan is the unconditional withdrawal of its occupation forces.
The Baloch are historically divided due to their tribal nature but you say you're trying to bring forces together through the so-called Liberation Charter. What is this initiative about?
It's a document which has over 80 articles but it's still in progress. It's main goal is to draw the lines of the country we want before we get our independence. I have presented the charter to other prominent Baloch leaders such as Brahumdagh Bugti, Suleman Daud Khan and Akhtar Mengal. We are still waiting for their feedback. It's both a road map and a contract with the people of Balochistan. Many nations have historically talked about independence but without previously setting the bases of the kind of country they want. Accordingly, we want to have our homework done beforehand.
So what are the basic lines so far?
Two of the basis points in Charter cannot be changed or compromised and the others are open to suggestions and amendments if necessary. Those two first points are the independence of Balochistan and the parliamentary system after independence. Basically, we want a country whose leaders are elected democratically, where religion is a private issue which doesn't play a role in the state affairs and where women, every creed and ethnicity share equal rights.
But you are also a tribal leader of the Marri, the biggest Baloch clan. Can the tribal system be integrated into the democratic society you mention?
The tribes or clans are part of our identity but they should not prevail over a legal judiciary system. Maximum power should be given to the state judiciary and state administration. The tribes should remain as a cultural aspect of our society as we are already in the 21st century.
A tiny part of Balochistan lies in southern Afghanistan but Iran hosts a significant Baloch community. Is there any coordination between the Baloch from Pakistan and Iran?
Yes, there is understanding between us and we do coordinate at an international level. We have also presented the Balochistan Liberation Charter to two main parties of Western Occupied Balochistan. They already gave their suggestions and feedback which we've found positive and encouraging. Needless to say that we fully support the Independence of Western-occupied Balochistan from Iran.
Interview: Karlos Zurutuza, London Editor: Rob Mudge
H.R. McMaster: The Warrior's-Eye View of Afghanistan
The two-star general wrote the book on Vietnam and showed the way for the surge in Iraq. Now he's back from 20 months in Afghanistan—and says the war can be won.
Wall Street Journal
By DAVID FEITH THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW May 11, 2012
Washington, D.C. - 'The distant rear of an army engaged in battle is not the best place from which to judge correctly what is going on in front."
The words are from Ulysses S. Grant's recollections of the Battle of Shiloh. But they are being quoted to me by H.R. McMaster, arguably the Pentagon's foremost warrior-scholar, to stress that the increasingly common American perception that the Afghan War is lost doesn't jibe with what he witnessed during his recent 20-month deployment to Afghanistan.
"The difficulties are apparent," says the two-star Army general, "but oftentimes the opportunities are masked."
For a sense of those opportunities, consider some of the metrics of battle. When Gen. McMaster arrived in Afghanistan in July 2010—as President Obama's surge reached full strength—enemy attacks numbered 4,000 a month. A year later, they had dropped to 3,250. In March, there were 1,700. Every month from May 2011 through March 2012 (the latest with available data) had fewer attacks than the same month the year before, the longest sustained reduction of the war.
Meanwhile, Afghan security forces will number 350,000 this summer, up from 240,000 when Gen. McMaster arrived. Afghans now lead nearly half of all combat operations. Eight million Afghan children attend school, including three million girls, compared to one million and zero girls in 2001. Where finding a telephone 10 years ago often required traveling a full day, now more than 12 million Afghans own cellphones (out of 32 million total).
"Our soldiers, airmen, Marines and sailors, working alongside Afghans, have shut down the vast majority of the physical space in which the enemy can operate," says Gen. McMaster. "The question is, how do we consolidate those gains politically and psychologically?"
The political and psychological dimensions of warfare have long fascinated the general, who first became famous in the Army when he led his vastly outnumbered tank regiment to victory at the Battle of 73 Easting in the first Gulf War. Six years later, he published "Dereliction of Duty," based on his Ph.D. thesis indicting the Vietnam-era military leadership for failing to push back against a commander in chief, Lyndon Johnson, who was more interested in securing his Great Society domestic agenda than in doing what was necessary—militarily and politically—to prevail in Southeast Asia. For 15 years it's been considered must-reading at the Pentagon.
But Gen. McMaster really earned his renown applying the tenets of counterinsurgency strategy, or COIN, during the war in Iraq. As a colonel in 2005, he took responsibility for a place called Tal Afar. In that city of 200,000 people, the insurgents' "savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young," wrote Tal Afar's mayor in 2006. "This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment."
Gen. McMaster's troops fought in Tal Afar with the understanding that victory would not be achieved by using maximum violence to hunt and kill insurgents. Instead, the key tasks were to secure and improve life for the local population, establish reliable local government, and project determination and staying power.
Before long, President George W. Bush was citing Tal Afar as a model. It helped inspire the strategy shift that turned around the Iraq War under David Petraeus, Gen. McMaster's mentor and a fellow West Point graduate with a Ph.D. and a penchant for quoting theorists like Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), the Prussian officer who famously defined war as the continuation of politics by other means.
Now Gen. McMaster has been attempting to apply counterinsurgency strategy in another war most Americans have written off.
As the head of Task Force Shafafiyat—the word means "transparency" in Pashto—his job was to identify how U.S. and Afghan funds flow not only as payments to contractors, subcontractors and local Afghan officials, but as kickbacks or protection money to criminal networks and insurgents. Since August 2010, the coalition says, it has vetted some 1,400 American, Afghan and foreign companies, barring or suspending more than 150 firms and individuals from doing business with the U.S.
Trying to stop corruption in Afghanistan is often seen in the West as akin to trying to stop the tides. Gen. McMaster calls that view "bigotry masquerading as cultural sensitivity."
But there is little doubt that corruption is a formidable problem. The abuse of official positions of power for personal gain, the general said last year in Kabul, "is robbing Afghanistan of much-needed revenue, undermining rule of law, degrading the effectiveness of state institutions, and eroding popular confidence in the government."
In 2010, Kabul Bank—Afghanistan's largest, and the main source of payment for Afghan security forces—nearly brought down the country's financial system when almost $1 billion in reserves apparently disappeared into the briefcases and Dubai villas of Afghan elites. In another case, Gen. McMaster's investigators found evidence that Afghanistan's former surgeon general had stolen tens of millions of dollars worth of drugs from military hospitals.
Though corruption charges have dogged senior officials and intimates of Afghan President Hamid Karzai for years, not a single person with high-level political connections has been convicted of wrongdoing. In many cases, Mr. Karzai appears to have personally blocked or hampered efforts at accountability.
Staying politic, Gen. McMaster notes that Mr. Karzai and other senior officials have at last acknowledged the problem publicly. "Now, have they matched that with decisive action? No. But is [public acknowledgment] a first step? Yes it is."
Perhaps Gen. McMaster is reluctant to pin too much blame on Mr. Karzai because he thinks the root of Afghanistan's corruption problem goes deeper, to three decades of "trauma that it's been through, the legacy of the 1990s civil war . . . [and] the effects of the narcotics trade." Add to that the unintended consequences of sudden Western attention starting in 2001: "We did exacerbate the problem with lack of transparency and accountability built into the large influx of international assistance that came into a government that lacked mature institutions."
Yet the Afghan War's most important factor, in his view, could be the Afghan people's expectations for the future. "Why did the Taliban collapse so quickly in 2001?" he asks. "The fundamental reason was that every Afghan was convinced of the inevitability of the Taliban's defeat."
Today it's not clear who the strong horse is, so many Afghans are hedging their bets. "What you see in Afghanistan oftentimes," the general says, "is a short-term-maximization-of-gains mentality—get as much out of the system as you can to build up a power base in advance of a post-[NATO], post-international-community Afghanistan."
In this respect, the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed last week by President Obama and Mr. Karzai may help, since it pledges some American military and diplomatic commitments through 2024. Gen. McMaster calls it "immensely important." Still, it doesn't erase the record of Obama administration rhetoric to the effect that American withdrawal is inevitable even if the enemy's defeat is not.
Gen. McMaster steers far clear of any such political criticism. Instead, he argues that the Afghan people can be convinced to bet against the insurgency—and in favor of their government—if they see a crackdown on public corruption.
Some of the signs are good. Afghan civil society, he says hopefully, has a growing number of "groups that don't want to see the gains of the past 10 years reversed, that want a better future for their children, and that are demanding necessary reforms from their leaders." Last year saw the launch of the Right and Justice Party, with an anticorruption message and multiethnic leadership of Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras.
One of the general's historical models is Colombia, where a few years ago many people believed the government couldn't stand up to the narco-terrorist FARC insurgency. "What was the problem of Colombia in the late '90s? It was political will to take [the FARC] on," he says, adding that U.S. counternarcotics and other efforts helped lay the groundwork that Álvaro Uribe built on after winning Colombia's presidency in 2002.
We could see such an outcome again, says Gen. McMaster, especially given "the innate weakness of Afghanistan's enemies."
"What do the Taliban have to offer the Afghan people?" he asks. They are "a criminal organization, criminal because they engage in mass murder of innocent people, and criminal because they're also the largest narcotics-trafficking organization in the world. Are these virtuous religious people? No, these are murderous, nihilistic, irreligious people who we're fighting—we along with Afghans who are determined to not allow them to return."
Taliban groups, he adds, are increasingly seen by Afghans "as a tool of hostile foreign intelligence agencies. These are people who live in comfort in Pakistan and send their children to private schools while they destroy schools in Afghanistan." He notes, too, that indigenous Afghan fighters are wondering where their leadership is: "One of the maxims of military leadership is that you share the hardships of your troops, you lead from the front. Well they're leading from comfortable villas in Pakistan. So there's growing resentment, and this could be an opportunity to convince key communities inside of Afghanistan into joining the political process."
As a tool for this, Gen. McMaster praises the U.S. military's "village stability operations," which send small teams of Special Forces to live among Afghans in remote villages vulnerable to Taliban intimidation.
Still, it's easy to get carried away by the glimmers of hope, and the general is very much a realist. For one thing, Pakistan remains a haven for insurgency, and Gen. McMaster says little more than that it "remains to be seen" whether Pakistan's leaders will conclude that their interests lie in defeating the Taliban.
Just as worrisome, though far less noticed, is the influence of Iran, which is pressuring Kabul to reject the Strategic Partnership Agreement.
"Many of the media platforms that operate in Afghanistan—television, radio, print media—are either wholly captured and run, or owned by hostile organizations or entities," Gen. McMaster says. The Iranian government has about 20 television stations operating in Western Afghanistan. Another disheartening hearts-and-minds metric: Iran and other foreign entities run more schools in Herat City than does the Afghan government.
Near the end of our interview, we turn to the future of American warfare. U.S. troops are scheduled to end combat operations in Afghanistan in 2014, perhaps sooner. Focus is turning from the Middle East to East Asia, and to the air and sea power required in the Pacific.
Does that mean that for the foreseeable future the U.S. won't "do" another Afghanistan or Iraq? "We have a perfect record in predicting future wars—right? . . . And that record is 0%," says the general. "If you look at the demands that have been placed on our armed forces in recent years, I think the story that will be told years from now is one of adaptability to mission sets and circumstances that were not clearly defined or anticipated prior to those wars."
That's fortunate, Gen. McMaster makes clear, in light of Clausewitz's 200-year-old warning not "to turn war into something that's alien to its nature—don't try to define war as you would like it to be."
Mr. Feith is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.
Police, NATO Troops Killed in Afghanistan
VOA News May 12, 2012
A roadside bomb has killed four policemen in Afghanistan, while NATO says at least two members of its international peacekeeping force have died.
A spokesman for the Badghis provincial governor said Saturday that the four police officers were killed when an explosive ripped through their patrol vehicle.
And NATO announced Saturday that at least one of its service members in southern Afghanistan has died in a bomb blast, while another died of non-battle-related causes. NATO does not release details about slain service members, including their nationalities.
On Friday in eastern Afghanistan, an attacker wearing an Afghan army uniform shot and killed a U.S. service member in Kunar province.
Friday's shooting was at least the 15th incident this year in which an Afghan soldier or an insurgent disguised as a soldier fired on coalition forces.
U.S. officials have said that many of the so-called “insider attacks” are motivated by personal disputes.
The incidents have raised concerns about security in Afghanistan at a time when international combat troops are preparing to withdraw from the country.
International forces are set to transfer full security responsibility to Afghan forces by a 2014 deadline.
Also Friday, the United Nations' special representative to Afghanistan, Jan Kubis, told reporters that civilian casualties have gone down by 20 percent in the first four months of this year compared to the same period in 2011. Kubis would not give exact figures, but said the majority of civilian deaths are caused by insurgent attacks, including suicide bombings.
Afghan commanders show new defiance in dealings with Americans
The Washington Post By Kevin Sieff May 11, 2012
KABUL - Afghan commanders have refused more than a dozen times within the past two months to act on U.S. intelligence regarding high-level insurgents, arguing that night-time operations to target the men would result in civilian casualties, Afghan officials say.
The defiance highlights the shift underway in Afghanistan as Afghan commanders make use of their newfound power to veto operations proposed by their NATO counterparts.
For much of the past decade, NATO commanders have dictated most aspects of the allied war strategy, with Afghan military officers playing a far more marginal role. But with the signing of an agreement last month, Afghans have now inherited responsibility for so-called night raids — a crucial feature of the war effort.
To Afghan leaders, the decisions made by their commanders reflect growing Afghan autonomy from Western forces as NATO draws down, and prove that Afghan forces are willing to exercise more caution than foreign troops when civilian lives are at stake.
“In the last two months, 14 to 16 [night] operations have been rejected by the Afghans,” said Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi, the top Afghan army officer. “The U.S. has said, ‘This operation better be conducted. It’s a high-value target.’ Then my people said, ‘It’s a high-value target. I agree with you. But there are so many civilian children and women [in the area].’ ”
Many of the rejected night operations are later conducted once civilians are no longer in the vicinity of the targets, Karimi said.
U.S. officials point to progress they have made in their own efforts to reduce civilian casualties, and say that while the Afghans occasionally choose not to act on American intelligence, night operations are nonetheless frequently conducted. Americans continue to provide logistical support and backup, U.S. officials say, using their aircraft to deposit Afghan soldiers at the targets.
“The Afghans are the ones who give final say on whether or not the mission gets conducted. That’s how the process works now,” said a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. “The operational tempo hasn’t been affected by this. I don’t think there’s been a night when they haven’t conducted a good number of operations.”
But the resistance to American guidance on night operations represents the clearest indication to date that Afghan military commanders are heeding a directive from President Hamid Karzai last month. Just a day after signing a 10-year bilateral agreement with the United States, Karzai said Afghan soldiers should discard questionable information provided by the U.S. military.
“If you have any doubt about an American intelligence report, do not conduct any operation based on it,” he told officials at the Interior Ministry.
The Afghan president grew even more disenchanted over the last week, when separate NATO airstrikes killed 18 civilians in Logar, Kapisa, Badghis and Helmand provinces, according to Afghan officials. The president and his advisers said the attacks raise questions about the newly minted partnership agreement.
“Karzai signed the strategic pact with the United States to avoid such incidents and if Afghans do not feel safe, the strategic partnership loses its meaning,” said a presidential statement released Monday.
In the past, such complaints would have been unlikely to affect military operations. But the transition to greater Afghan control of security has left Karzai and his military in a stronger position to stymie the American strategy.
The transition will continue in the coming months. This summer, a number of districts and provinces will be formally entrusted to Afghan security forces, the third round of regional transitions. In September, Afghans will assume responsibility for the U.S. military prison at Bagram, with about 3,000 detainees.
In the past, Western officials questioned whether Karzai’s opposition to night raids and other U.S.-led operations was politically driven — aimed at proving to his people that he was capable of resisting American demands.
Now, with more transitional milestones looming, Afghan political and military leaders say their growing responsibility has made the issue of civilian casualties even more delicate.
“Most of the people will say, ‘I don’t blame the foreigners if they kill us, but why do you kill me?’ ” Karimi said. “We have to be concerned. We have to have people on our side.”
Each time civilians are killed in either a NATO or Afghan operation, Karzai or one of his advisers calls the Defense Ministry for an explanation. Karimi said the president’s involvement in military affairs centers largely on reducing civilian casualties rather than on dictating troop levels or strategy.
NATO officials say they have greatly reduced the number of civilians killed in operations in recent years. The United Nations last year attributed 400 civilian deaths to NATO and Afghan forces, a slight decrease from 2010.
“We have significantly improved attention to detail when it comes to targeting,” a U.S. official said.
Human rights organizations say they fear that the methods and institutions developed by NATO to both track and prevent civilian casualties will not be replicated by the Afghan security forces.
“Right now, Afghan forces don’t have systems in place to prevent and respond to civilian casualties they may cause. International forces evolved their thinking over a decade, realizing they needed a civilian casualty tracking team and policies to investigate civilian harm caused by their own forces,” said Sarah Holewinski, executive director of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict. “Without those systems in place, verbal commitments from the Afghan government to not harm civilians are likely to fall flat as Afghan forces take over.”
UN Calls On NATO Summit Members To Protect Women's Rights
May 12, 2012 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
The United Nations has called on participants in next week's NATO summit to take steps to protect the rights of women in Afghanistan before foreign troops pull out of the country in 2014.
Jan Kubis, the UN's special envoy to Afghanistan, said improvements made in the education and security of Afghan women during the past decade could be lost as the government in Kabul attempts to reconcile with the Taliban and NATO troops prepare to withdraw.
Kubis's remarks were part of a joint statement issued by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, UN Women, and the UN Population Fund.
Officials attending the NATO summit in the U.S. city of Chicago on May 20-21 are due to consider funding for Afghan security forces and support for human rights.
With reporting by AFP
U.S., Pakistani Military Officials Discuss Border Security
VOA News May 12, 2012
The top U.S. commander on the NATO force in Afghanistan has met with Pakistan's army chief to discuss security issues.
The Pakistani military announced Saturday that General John Allen flew to Rawalpindi Saturday and met with General Ashfaz Parvez Kayani.
In a statement, the military said the meeting was meant to discuss operations in border areas and coordination to avoid what it called “untoward incidents.”
Pakistan closed U.S. and NATO supply routes to Afghanistan after a cross-border NATO air attack in November that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at a checkpoint.
Saturday's meeting could help ease U.S.-Pakistani tensions ahead of a NATO summit on Afghanistan in Chicago later this month.
David Cameron and Francois Hollande heading for showdown over French withdrawal from Afghanistan
David Cameron is heading for a confrontation with Francois Hollande, France's new Socialist president next week over the withdrawal of French troops from Afghanistan.
Telegraph.co.uk By James Kirkup, Ben Farmer 11 May 2012
Kabul - The Prime Minister wants Francois Hollande to reconsider his election pledge to withdraw thousands of soldiers this year, a British general has suggested.
The United States-led Nato combat mission in Afghanistan is not due to end until the end of 2014. However, the alliance is struggling to maintain a coherent approach among all its members.
Mr Hollande, elected as successor to Nicolas Sarkozy last weekend, has promised to withdraw France's 3,300 troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2012.
Instead, British and American leaders want Mr Hollande to delay the French troop drawdown until at least 2013.
They fear his current plan will spark a "rush for the exits" in Afghanistan and ruin the more gradual withdrawal timetable they want to agree at a Nato summit in Chicago next weekend.
Lt Gen Adrian Bradshaw, the deputy Nato chief in Afghanistan, said that alliance commanders "very much hope" that French forces will remain active in Afghanistan for several more years.
Mr Cameron will meet Mr Hollande for the first time next week, first at a Group of Eight meeting at Camp David, then at the Chicago summit, which starts a week on Sunday.
Lt Gen Bradshaw said French troops are making a vital contribution in Afghanistan and said he believed it "remains a very strong possibility" that Mr Hollande will be persuaded to delay a French withdrawal.
"They will take the decisions that they have to take based on their political requirements," he said. "We very much hope that they will find a way to remain active participants in this coalition through to the end of 2014. And we think that still remains a strong possibility."
Barack Obama's administration said this week it has sent a team of officials to Paris for early meetings with Mr Hollande's advisers in the hope of delaying the French withdrawal.
The Chicago meeting is scheduled to fix the timetable for Nato to hand over security operations in Afghanistan to Afghan forces over the next two years.
The potential turmoil that could follow an early Nato withdrawal from Afghanistan was highlighted by last month's wave of Taliban attacks on the capital Kabul, one of the most brazen assaults on the city since the US led invasion 10 years ago.
It comes as the Afghan government prepares to announce the handover of the last British-controlled area of Helmand, opening the way for the possible return home next year of thousands of British troops.
Nahr-e Saraj district is likely to be named among 230 areas to begin transfer to Afghan control, British officials in Kabul believe.
The announcement from Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, which may come as early as Sunday, will mean all three British-garrisoned districts will have entered the transition process allowing Afghan forces take over security duties from the Nato-led coalition.
The process will take 12 to 18 months, meaning Afghan soldiers and police are likely to take charge in the middle of next year. Lashkar Gah and Nad-e Ali, the two other British districts, began transfer last year.
Britain has around 9,500 soldiers in Afghanistan. After to bowing to requests from British commanders to slow the pace of withdrawal, Mr Cameron has said only 500 will leave this year.
However the handover of the last British territory now paves the way for a far larger withdrawal in 2013, as troops switch to training and support missions rather than combat.
PwC accused over $900m Afghan bank scandal
Finance Minister says auditors were negligent in signing off Kabul Bank accounts
The Independent By Kim Sengupta Saturday 12 May 2012
Kabul - The Pakistani branch of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is likely to be sued by the Afghan government over the collapse of a bank amid allegations of massive fraud in which $900m (£560m) went missing. The Independent has learned that a confidential report into the demise of Kabul Bank is severely critical of the performance of auditors AF Ferguson & Co, which cleared the institution's accounts for a prolonged period, leaving the way open for legal action.
The scandal was viewed as a particularly shocking example of the corruption that has become endemic under Hamid Karzai's government. One of the President's brothers, Mahmoud, was among those forced to deny complicity following accusations by a former chairman of the bank.
An investigation by forensic accountants, Kroll Associates, reveals "at a minimum level serious negligence" by PwC, according to the Afghan Finance Minister Hazrat Omar Zahkiwal. "It is likely there will be legal action, we think there is enough there in the report for this to take place," he said. "It is true that our Central Bank has a supervision branch which failed in this case. But PwC gave Kabul Bank a clean bill of health year after year and this misled the Central Bank." The British Government is providing about $4.5m towards the inquiry and an asset-recovery programme by Kroll, whose report was handed to the Afghan government in March. "What happened certainly does not look good on the government," Dr Zahkiwal said. "But even if we could have suspected our own supervisory system, we did not expect such a respectable international accountants like PwC's inability to do the job."
A memorandum from USAid, part of a previous report into the collapse by the Office of Inspector General in Washington, stated that a team from PwC had failed to identify any wrongdoing, a factor which "may have acted to delay understanding of the gravity of Kabul Bank's condition both among the examination staff and the international community." Under international pressure, President Karzai had set a deadline for the bank's principal debtors to acknowledge their responsibility and agree repayment plans, with the offer that they would thus avoid having to pay interest in the sums involved.
Proceedings are under way to seize assets in Afghanistan and Dubai, but Dr Zahkiwal acknowledged that so far only about $100m has been recovered. He insisted that progress was being made in pursuing debtors, albeit slowly. Part of the problem has been tracing assets moved abroad, including to e Gulf states, the US and western Europe.
President Karzai had also agreed to the setting up of a special court to carry out a fraud trial although, so far, there have been no significant prosecutions and no details about legal proceedings.
Sherkhan Farnood and Khalilullah Ferozi, respectively the bank's former chairman and chief executive, were arrested last year. Rahmatullah Nazari, the Deputy Attorney-General, declared that they will face trial for fraud, allegations they deny. It has been claimed that some of those arrested have been seen on the streets of Kabul. "Some of these people were released during the day," Dr Zahkiwal said. "They said they would help in recovering the money. Some spent time doing other things as well. But all attempts had to be made to get back as much as possible".
Mr Farnood had claimed that Mahmoud Karzai was one of those who had taken out loans from Kabul Bank. Mr Karzai has maintained that he repaid all loans. He stressed that he had strongly advised against some investments made by the bank and that he was prepared to co-operate with any inquiry.
In a statement yesterday via PwC,AF Ferguson & Co, said: "We are not in a position to comment... as we have not been involved in the investigation and are not privy to its findings."
A Wedding in Kabul and the Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan
The Huffington Post By Sarwar Kashmeri Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council 11/05/2012
President Obama appeared unannounced in Kabul earlier this month to sign the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement with President Karzai. Security is still so dangerous in Kabul the president had to squeak into the city during the middle of the night and his arrival was only announced after he had been helicoptered to Karzai's palace. Then the president was spirited out of Afghanistan within an hour and a half lest the Taliban wake up to the president's presence in Kabul and try to launch an attack.
The president's visit reminded me that the Afghan wife of a good friend called not long ago and asked if I'd accompany her to a wedding in Kabul. "It would be so much fun for you and I'd like to have a friend with me," she said. Tempting as the invitation was, I wondered why she wasn't taking her husband. "Oh it is much too dangerous for an American but you would be OK," she exclaimed cheerily. I was born in India and am a bit more tawny in complexion than her husband!
Ten years, over 1900 American deaths, and almost a trillion dollars later Americans cannot walk the streets of Afghanistan's capital, and the President has to slink in and out of the country in darkness. It is a tragic state of affairs, but will soon get worse.
The American and NATO plan is to create an all Afghan force of 350,000 by the end of this year and transfer responsibility for maintaining security to Afghans by 2014. This date coincides with the departure of all allied combat troops. Afghans will then be in charge of protecting their own country. NATO reports that the transfer of responsibility is proceeding apace and is on schedule.
The Afghans cannot afford to pay for the sizable force that will protect them. So in spite of the dangerous security situation the number of Afghan security forces will actually be reduced to 230,000 by the time the U.S. and NATO forces leave in 2014, according to the New York Times.
The problem is even the reduced force will cost around $4 billion to maintain which is about the size of the entire Afghan state budget. The problem will be resolved by American and other NATO countries' taxpayers who will pay for this tab.
That should be that, but this being Afghanistan it is not. According to the Christian Science Monitor,
An amount equal to the cost of operating the 230,000 force leaves Afghanistan from Kabul airport every year.
In fact, the paper says,
It is estimated $8 billion in cash was lugged out of the country last year by car, private jets and border crossings. That is almost double the entire country's budget for 2011.
In spite of these realities on the ground, the middle-of-the-night Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement's Preamble maintains that "... Afghanistan is now on a path of sustainable self-reliance in security, governance, economic and social development... "
For a change United States taxpayers seem to be ahead of this game. By a two to one margin Americans of both parties disapprove of the Strategic Agreement that also calls for a U.S. presence in Afghanistan until at least 2024.
This is how the longest American war ends. In a rush for the exits the most powerful country on earth and the most successful military alliance in history (as NATO likes to describe itself) will leave the Afghans with a security force it cannot afford; a corrupt government that smuggles American taxpayer dollars out of Afghanistan as fast as the United States can send them there; and a country in which, after the decade of war, an American cannot safely attend a wedding.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com
ABC News By Olivier Knox May 11, 2012
When President Barack Obama welcomes NATO leaders to Chicago in ten days for a high-stakes summit on the war in Afghanistan, there could be a big gap in the alliance's talks on strategy — a hole the size and shape of Pakistan.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen strongly suggested at his monthly press conference on Friday that Pakistan would not be welcome at the May 20-21 gathering unless it reopens key supply routes into Afghanistan.
"We have actually invited a number of countries from the region -- neighbors of Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Russia -- because they provide important transit arrangements to the benefit of our operation," he said.
"But, as you also know, our transit routes through Pakistan are currently blocked so we have to continue our dialogue with Pakistan with a view to finding a solution to that because that's really a matter of concern," Rasmussen said.
The secretary general also echoed past statements from leaders like President Barack Obama that no Afghanistan war strategy can ultimately be successful without Pakistan's help.
"If we are to ensure long-term peace and stability in Afghanistan, we also need a positive engagement of Pakistan," he said.
White House officials declined to comment on the record about Rasmussen's comments. But an administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Yahoo News that "The U.S. and NATO want to see these lines opened up, and it would be preferable to have Pakistan participating in Chicago."
"But we'll have to see what progress Pakistan can make in the coming days to determine whether they might ultimately be issued an invitation," the official said. Rasmussen's comments came two weeks after the Pentagon released an Afghanistan war progress report that highlighted "both long-term and acute challenges" of the conflict, and warned that the Taliban and their al-Qaida allies "still operate with impunity from sanctuaries in Pakistan."
"The insurgency's safe haven in Pakistan, as well as the limited capacity of the Afghan government, remain the biggest risks to the process of turning security gains into a durable and sustainable Afghanistan," according to the report.
The summit in Chicago aims to fine-turn the alliance's strategy in Afghanistan, which calls for shifting the burdens of securing the strife-torn country to local forces and withdrawing NATO's combat troops by the end of 2014. Obama paid an unannounced visit to Afghanistan May 1 and signed an agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzai that could have some American troops stay there until 2024 to train local forces and carry out counter-terrorism strikes.
"In Chicago, the international community will express support for this plan and for Afghanistan's future," Obama said in a televised speech from Bagram Air Base. "And I have made it clear to its neighbor -- Pakistan -- that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Pakistan's sovereignty, interests and democratic institutions."
Obama met with Pakistan President ?Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani March 27 on the sidelines of a summit in Seoul and acknowledged "strains" in relations between Washington and Islamabad.
Pakistan closed routes used to supply NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, after a NATO air strike into Pakistani territory in November killed 24 Pakistani troops. Islamabad wants a formal apology from the United States and has pushed for an end to drone strikes on its soil.
"It is in the interest of Pakistan for a stable, peaceful, prosperous, independent, sovereign Afghanistan," Gilani said as he met with Obama. "We want stability in Afghanistan."
"If there is a stability in Afghanistan it's a stability in Pakistan, and peace for Afghanistan and Pakistan," the prime minister said. "We want to work together with you to have all the peace, prosperity and progress of the whole world."
Speaking to reporters after those talks, Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes, hinted at the same conditions for Pakistan's presence in Chicago.
"The President and Prime Minister also agreed that as cooperation on our shared interest increases, the United States would welcome the potential participation of Pakistan in the ISAF summit in Chicago in May," he said.
NATO head urges Pakistan to open transit routes in time for summit
Reuters Fri May 11, 2012
BRUSSELS - NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen suggested on Friday that Pakistan could miss out on important talks on the future of Afghanistan if it fails to reopen supply routes in time to secure a place at a NATO summit in Chicago on May 20-21.
Speaking at a news conference, Rasmussen made no explicit reference to excluding Pakistan - which closed transit routes to Afghanistan after 24 of its soldiers were killed in a NATO cross-border air attack last November.
But he noted that other countries providing supply routes to NATO had been invited to the summit, which will map out a future for Afghanistan after most foreign combat troops are withdrawn at the end of 2014.
"As I mentioned we have actually invited a number of countries from the region, neighbors of Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Russia, because they provide important transit arrangements to the benefit of our operation," he said in response to a question.
"But as you also know our transit routes through Pakistan are currently blocked so we have to continue our dialogue with Pakistan with a view to finding a solution to that because that's really a matter of concern."
Pakistan has demanded a formal apology from the United States for the cross-border attack before it reopens the supply routes, and has also called for an end to U.S. drone strikes on its tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.
With neither of those demands likely to be met, the government faces the choice of making an embarrassing climbdown - politically tricky at time anti-Americanism is running high in Pakistan - or continuing to hold out.
Pakistan boycotted an international conference on Afghanistan in Bonn in December in protest against the NATO air strikes.
(Reporting by Sebastian Moffett)
U.S. lawmakers want Haqqani named "terrorist" group
Reuters Fri May 11, 2012
WASHINGTON - The leaders of congressional intelligence committees, who recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan, urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday to immediately designate the militant Haqqani network as a "terrorist" group.
U.S. officials blame the al Qaeda-linked network for attacks in Afghanistan including assaults on embassies and the parliament in Kabul. The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, called the Haqqani group a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's intelligence service.
The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees, in a letter to Clinton, said their trip to Afghanistan last week reaffirmed concerns about the network.
"It was clear that the Haqqani Network continues to launch sensational and indiscriminate attacks against U.S. interests in Afghanistan and the group poses a continuing threat to innocent men, women, and children in the region," the letter said.
In the six months since the State Department said in November it was engaged in a final review, "the Haqqanis have continued to attack U.S. troops and the U.S. Embassy in Kabul," the lawmakers wrote.
The letter said the administration may have been reluctant to designate the network as a "terrorist" group while trying to negotiate a reconciliation agreement with the Taliban. But U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker told the lawmakers last week there have been no such talks since late last year and Afghan President Hamid Karzai has opposed their continuation.
The letter, signed by senators Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss and Representatives Mike Rogers and C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, said there was no reason not to move forward on the designation.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the lawmakers' letter had been received, and that the review of the potential designation was still under way.
But she pointed out that many key Haqqani leaders had already been targeted by individual designations, freezing any U.S.-based assets they might have and barring any U.S. citizen from transactions with them.
"As we continue our review we consider it absolutely essential to designate individuals because that allows us to pursue the assets of individuals rather than have to sort of try to divine who might be covered by a blanket designation," Nuland said.
(Reporting By Tabassum Zakaria; additional reporting by Andrew Quinn; Editing by Jim Loney)
'Taliban are Pakistani military without uniform'
DW 11/05/2012
In the wake of the first anniversary of Osama Bin Laden's killing by American elite troops, DW takes a closer look at Pakistan's "other" war in a rare interview with a prominent Baloch leader.
Hyrbyar Marri is the fifth son of Nawab Khair Baksh Marri, a veteran national leader and the head of the largest Baloch clan. In the late 1990s Hyrbar Marri went into exile in Britain. In 2007, he was arrested under a warrant issued by former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and held in Belmarsh - a maximum security prison in southeast London. Prominent British human rights advocates such as Peter Thatchell campaigned for Marri and accused the British executive of collaborating with Musharraf's regime. Marri was eventually acquitted in 2008 by a British jury and remains in Britain where he has recently been granted asylum.
DW: What's the current situation in Pakistani-controlled Balochistan?
Hyrbyar Marri: Islamabad wants access to the Baloch land to fill it with settlers and steal our resources. In the meantime, our people are being picked up by the Pakistani secret services and their dead bodies appear a few days later, bearing torture marks, cigarette burns and slogans -"long live Pakistan"- carved on their bodies with knives by the intelligence agencies. East Balochistan (under Pakistan control) was an independent state for nine months until it was occupied by Pakistan in March 1948. Since then we've been subjected to a genocide in slow motion under Islamabad's boot, a process of extermination that has left our language, culture and identity on the brink of extinction.
Some Baloch are asking for self-determination but you've demanded independence. Why is that?
Asking for self-determination equals to accepting that we've been part of Pakistan on a legal base and that we now want to decide whether we want to remain or leave. In my opinion, that's like denying the fact that we've been occupied for over 60 years. We declared our independence even before Pakistan did so today many Baloch are asking for independence because that was actually our status before we were occupied.
You reject parliamentary politics and many people argue that you support the armed struggle, and even lead it. What's your stance on that?
I reject parliamentary politics as they are understood today, As an occupied land, Balochistan's regional parliament endorses occupation. As for the armed struggle, I'm a man of peace but I also think that every nation has the right to defend themselves from any aggression, a right which is actually recognized by the United Nations. The International community should intervene and help us solve the issue through peaceful means instead of forcing us to fight against the invaders.
Why is the international community doing nothing about this issue?
Because the international community has been historically blackmailed by Pakistan and Iran by calling us "terrorists" and even "religious extremists." Nonetheless, I think that the West is now beginning to understand that it's very much the other way round: The Baloch are historically a secular people and it's actually Pakistan that's been backing religious extremists in the whole area to fulfil their agenda in the whole region, including Afghanistan. The paradox is that these fanatic groups were initially backed by Western powers and, today such groups have become a nightmare for everybody and especially for the Baloch.
A British Red Cross worker was killed in Balochistan by the Taliban recently. How do you feel about this?
The Taliban are basically Pakistani military without uniform. They started beheading westerners after 9/11 but we were being beheaded by these religious butchers long ago. We have informed the International community about the evil intentions of the ISI - the Pakistani secret services - but our plea has been stubbornly ignored. There is still time for the West to support the Baloch freedom movement if they want to stop the spread of religious madness in the region.
How would an eventual American withdrawal from Afghanistan affect Balochistan?
I have no doubt that the levels of violence against us will increase when the Americans leave Afghanistan. There'll be even less space for secular people as ourselves. This is one of the reasons why an independent Balochistan would not only be good for us but also for the rest of the world. As we are secular people we would not allow extremism coming from Pakistan, Iran or Afghanistan.
You ask for a foreign intervention but is such a move plausible in a nuclear country like Pakistan?
The Geneva Convention doesn't mention any exception should be made if a country has nuclear weapons or not. If a nuclear power occupies a country, there should be a resolution for their pullout. Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Gillani has even spoken about conducting a referendum in Balochistan but, tell me, when the French, the English, etc pulled out from their colonies, was there any referendum whatsoever? We're also a colony so Islamabad should leave without any pre-conditions. The only point to negotiate with Pakistan is the unconditional withdrawal of its occupation forces.
The Baloch are historically divided due to their tribal nature but you say you're trying to bring forces together through the so-called Liberation Charter. What is this initiative about?
It's a document which has over 80 articles but it's still in progress. It's main goal is to draw the lines of the country we want before we get our independence. I have presented the charter to other prominent Baloch leaders such as Brahumdagh Bugti, Suleman Daud Khan and Akhtar Mengal. We are still waiting for their feedback. It's both a road map and a contract with the people of Balochistan. Many nations have historically talked about independence but without previously setting the bases of the kind of country they want. Accordingly, we want to have our homework done beforehand.
So what are the basic lines so far?
Two of the basis points in Charter cannot be changed or compromised and the others are open to suggestions and amendments if necessary. Those two first points are the independence of Balochistan and the parliamentary system after independence. Basically, we want a country whose leaders are elected democratically, where religion is a private issue which doesn't play a role in the state affairs and where women, every creed and ethnicity share equal rights.
But you are also a tribal leader of the Marri, the biggest Baloch clan. Can the tribal system be integrated into the democratic society you mention?
The tribes or clans are part of our identity but they should not prevail over a legal judiciary system. Maximum power should be given to the state judiciary and state administration. The tribes should remain as a cultural aspect of our society as we are already in the 21st century.
A tiny part of Balochistan lies in southern Afghanistan but Iran hosts a significant Baloch community. Is there any coordination between the Baloch from Pakistan and Iran?
Yes, there is understanding between us and we do coordinate at an international level. We have also presented the Balochistan Liberation Charter to two main parties of Western Occupied Balochistan. They already gave their suggestions and feedback which we've found positive and encouraging. Needless to say that we fully support the Independence of Western-occupied Balochistan from Iran.
Interview: Karlos Zurutuza, London Editor: Rob Mudge
H.R. McMaster: The Warrior's-Eye View of Afghanistan
The two-star general wrote the book on Vietnam and showed the way for the surge in Iraq. Now he's back from 20 months in Afghanistan—and says the war can be won.
Wall Street Journal
By DAVID FEITH THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW May 11, 2012
Washington, D.C. - 'The distant rear of an army engaged in battle is not the best place from which to judge correctly what is going on in front."
The words are from Ulysses S. Grant's recollections of the Battle of Shiloh. But they are being quoted to me by H.R. McMaster, arguably the Pentagon's foremost warrior-scholar, to stress that the increasingly common American perception that the Afghan War is lost doesn't jibe with what he witnessed during his recent 20-month deployment to Afghanistan.
"The difficulties are apparent," says the two-star Army general, "but oftentimes the opportunities are masked."
For a sense of those opportunities, consider some of the metrics of battle. When Gen. McMaster arrived in Afghanistan in July 2010—as President Obama's surge reached full strength—enemy attacks numbered 4,000 a month. A year later, they had dropped to 3,250. In March, there were 1,700. Every month from May 2011 through March 2012 (the latest with available data) had fewer attacks than the same month the year before, the longest sustained reduction of the war.
Meanwhile, Afghan security forces will number 350,000 this summer, up from 240,000 when Gen. McMaster arrived. Afghans now lead nearly half of all combat operations. Eight million Afghan children attend school, including three million girls, compared to one million and zero girls in 2001. Where finding a telephone 10 years ago often required traveling a full day, now more than 12 million Afghans own cellphones (out of 32 million total).
"Our soldiers, airmen, Marines and sailors, working alongside Afghans, have shut down the vast majority of the physical space in which the enemy can operate," says Gen. McMaster. "The question is, how do we consolidate those gains politically and psychologically?"
The political and psychological dimensions of warfare have long fascinated the general, who first became famous in the Army when he led his vastly outnumbered tank regiment to victory at the Battle of 73 Easting in the first Gulf War. Six years later, he published "Dereliction of Duty," based on his Ph.D. thesis indicting the Vietnam-era military leadership for failing to push back against a commander in chief, Lyndon Johnson, who was more interested in securing his Great Society domestic agenda than in doing what was necessary—militarily and politically—to prevail in Southeast Asia. For 15 years it's been considered must-reading at the Pentagon.
But Gen. McMaster really earned his renown applying the tenets of counterinsurgency strategy, or COIN, during the war in Iraq. As a colonel in 2005, he took responsibility for a place called Tal Afar. In that city of 200,000 people, the insurgents' "savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young," wrote Tal Afar's mayor in 2006. "This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment."
Gen. McMaster's troops fought in Tal Afar with the understanding that victory would not be achieved by using maximum violence to hunt and kill insurgents. Instead, the key tasks were to secure and improve life for the local population, establish reliable local government, and project determination and staying power.
Before long, President George W. Bush was citing Tal Afar as a model. It helped inspire the strategy shift that turned around the Iraq War under David Petraeus, Gen. McMaster's mentor and a fellow West Point graduate with a Ph.D. and a penchant for quoting theorists like Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), the Prussian officer who famously defined war as the continuation of politics by other means.
Now Gen. McMaster has been attempting to apply counterinsurgency strategy in another war most Americans have written off.
As the head of Task Force Shafafiyat—the word means "transparency" in Pashto—his job was to identify how U.S. and Afghan funds flow not only as payments to contractors, subcontractors and local Afghan officials, but as kickbacks or protection money to criminal networks and insurgents. Since August 2010, the coalition says, it has vetted some 1,400 American, Afghan and foreign companies, barring or suspending more than 150 firms and individuals from doing business with the U.S.
Trying to stop corruption in Afghanistan is often seen in the West as akin to trying to stop the tides. Gen. McMaster calls that view "bigotry masquerading as cultural sensitivity."
But there is little doubt that corruption is a formidable problem. The abuse of official positions of power for personal gain, the general said last year in Kabul, "is robbing Afghanistan of much-needed revenue, undermining rule of law, degrading the effectiveness of state institutions, and eroding popular confidence in the government."
In 2010, Kabul Bank—Afghanistan's largest, and the main source of payment for Afghan security forces—nearly brought down the country's financial system when almost $1 billion in reserves apparently disappeared into the briefcases and Dubai villas of Afghan elites. In another case, Gen. McMaster's investigators found evidence that Afghanistan's former surgeon general had stolen tens of millions of dollars worth of drugs from military hospitals.
Though corruption charges have dogged senior officials and intimates of Afghan President Hamid Karzai for years, not a single person with high-level political connections has been convicted of wrongdoing. In many cases, Mr. Karzai appears to have personally blocked or hampered efforts at accountability.
Staying politic, Gen. McMaster notes that Mr. Karzai and other senior officials have at last acknowledged the problem publicly. "Now, have they matched that with decisive action? No. But is [public acknowledgment] a first step? Yes it is."
Perhaps Gen. McMaster is reluctant to pin too much blame on Mr. Karzai because he thinks the root of Afghanistan's corruption problem goes deeper, to three decades of "trauma that it's been through, the legacy of the 1990s civil war . . . [and] the effects of the narcotics trade." Add to that the unintended consequences of sudden Western attention starting in 2001: "We did exacerbate the problem with lack of transparency and accountability built into the large influx of international assistance that came into a government that lacked mature institutions."
Yet the Afghan War's most important factor, in his view, could be the Afghan people's expectations for the future. "Why did the Taliban collapse so quickly in 2001?" he asks. "The fundamental reason was that every Afghan was convinced of the inevitability of the Taliban's defeat."
Today it's not clear who the strong horse is, so many Afghans are hedging their bets. "What you see in Afghanistan oftentimes," the general says, "is a short-term-maximization-of-gains mentality—get as much out of the system as you can to build up a power base in advance of a post-[NATO], post-international-community Afghanistan."
In this respect, the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed last week by President Obama and Mr. Karzai may help, since it pledges some American military and diplomatic commitments through 2024. Gen. McMaster calls it "immensely important." Still, it doesn't erase the record of Obama administration rhetoric to the effect that American withdrawal is inevitable even if the enemy's defeat is not.
Gen. McMaster steers far clear of any such political criticism. Instead, he argues that the Afghan people can be convinced to bet against the insurgency—and in favor of their government—if they see a crackdown on public corruption.
Some of the signs are good. Afghan civil society, he says hopefully, has a growing number of "groups that don't want to see the gains of the past 10 years reversed, that want a better future for their children, and that are demanding necessary reforms from their leaders." Last year saw the launch of the Right and Justice Party, with an anticorruption message and multiethnic leadership of Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras.
One of the general's historical models is Colombia, where a few years ago many people believed the government couldn't stand up to the narco-terrorist FARC insurgency. "What was the problem of Colombia in the late '90s? It was political will to take [the FARC] on," he says, adding that U.S. counternarcotics and other efforts helped lay the groundwork that Álvaro Uribe built on after winning Colombia's presidency in 2002.
We could see such an outcome again, says Gen. McMaster, especially given "the innate weakness of Afghanistan's enemies."
"What do the Taliban have to offer the Afghan people?" he asks. They are "a criminal organization, criminal because they engage in mass murder of innocent people, and criminal because they're also the largest narcotics-trafficking organization in the world. Are these virtuous religious people? No, these are murderous, nihilistic, irreligious people who we're fighting—we along with Afghans who are determined to not allow them to return."
Taliban groups, he adds, are increasingly seen by Afghans "as a tool of hostile foreign intelligence agencies. These are people who live in comfort in Pakistan and send their children to private schools while they destroy schools in Afghanistan." He notes, too, that indigenous Afghan fighters are wondering where their leadership is: "One of the maxims of military leadership is that you share the hardships of your troops, you lead from the front. Well they're leading from comfortable villas in Pakistan. So there's growing resentment, and this could be an opportunity to convince key communities inside of Afghanistan into joining the political process."
As a tool for this, Gen. McMaster praises the U.S. military's "village stability operations," which send small teams of Special Forces to live among Afghans in remote villages vulnerable to Taliban intimidation.
Still, it's easy to get carried away by the glimmers of hope, and the general is very much a realist. For one thing, Pakistan remains a haven for insurgency, and Gen. McMaster says little more than that it "remains to be seen" whether Pakistan's leaders will conclude that their interests lie in defeating the Taliban.
Just as worrisome, though far less noticed, is the influence of Iran, which is pressuring Kabul to reject the Strategic Partnership Agreement.
"Many of the media platforms that operate in Afghanistan—television, radio, print media—are either wholly captured and run, or owned by hostile organizations or entities," Gen. McMaster says. The Iranian government has about 20 television stations operating in Western Afghanistan. Another disheartening hearts-and-minds metric: Iran and other foreign entities run more schools in Herat City than does the Afghan government.
Near the end of our interview, we turn to the future of American warfare. U.S. troops are scheduled to end combat operations in Afghanistan in 2014, perhaps sooner. Focus is turning from the Middle East to East Asia, and to the air and sea power required in the Pacific.
Does that mean that for the foreseeable future the U.S. won't "do" another Afghanistan or Iraq? "We have a perfect record in predicting future wars—right? . . . And that record is 0%," says the general. "If you look at the demands that have been placed on our armed forces in recent years, I think the story that will be told years from now is one of adaptability to mission sets and circumstances that were not clearly defined or anticipated prior to those wars."
That's fortunate, Gen. McMaster makes clear, in light of Clausewitz's 200-year-old warning not "to turn war into something that's alien to its nature—don't try to define war as you would like it to be."
Mr. Feith is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.
Police, NATO Troops Killed in Afghanistan
VOA News May 12, 2012
A roadside bomb has killed four policemen in Afghanistan, while NATO says at least two members of its international peacekeeping force have died.
A spokesman for the Badghis provincial governor said Saturday that the four police officers were killed when an explosive ripped through their patrol vehicle.
And NATO announced Saturday that at least one of its service members in southern Afghanistan has died in a bomb blast, while another died of non-battle-related causes. NATO does not release details about slain service members, including their nationalities.
On Friday in eastern Afghanistan, an attacker wearing an Afghan army uniform shot and killed a U.S. service member in Kunar province.
Friday's shooting was at least the 15th incident this year in which an Afghan soldier or an insurgent disguised as a soldier fired on coalition forces.
U.S. officials have said that many of the so-called “insider attacks” are motivated by personal disputes.
The incidents have raised concerns about security in Afghanistan at a time when international combat troops are preparing to withdraw from the country.
International forces are set to transfer full security responsibility to Afghan forces by a 2014 deadline.
Also Friday, the United Nations' special representative to Afghanistan, Jan Kubis, told reporters that civilian casualties have gone down by 20 percent in the first four months of this year compared to the same period in 2011. Kubis would not give exact figures, but said the majority of civilian deaths are caused by insurgent attacks, including suicide bombings.
Afghan commanders show new defiance in dealings with Americans
The Washington Post By Kevin Sieff May 11, 2012
KABUL - Afghan commanders have refused more than a dozen times within the past two months to act on U.S. intelligence regarding high-level insurgents, arguing that night-time operations to target the men would result in civilian casualties, Afghan officials say.
The defiance highlights the shift underway in Afghanistan as Afghan commanders make use of their newfound power to veto operations proposed by their NATO counterparts.
For much of the past decade, NATO commanders have dictated most aspects of the allied war strategy, with Afghan military officers playing a far more marginal role. But with the signing of an agreement last month, Afghans have now inherited responsibility for so-called night raids — a crucial feature of the war effort.
To Afghan leaders, the decisions made by their commanders reflect growing Afghan autonomy from Western forces as NATO draws down, and prove that Afghan forces are willing to exercise more caution than foreign troops when civilian lives are at stake.
“In the last two months, 14 to 16 [night] operations have been rejected by the Afghans,” said Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi, the top Afghan army officer. “The U.S. has said, ‘This operation better be conducted. It’s a high-value target.’ Then my people said, ‘It’s a high-value target. I agree with you. But there are so many civilian children and women [in the area].’ ”
Many of the rejected night operations are later conducted once civilians are no longer in the vicinity of the targets, Karimi said.
U.S. officials point to progress they have made in their own efforts to reduce civilian casualties, and say that while the Afghans occasionally choose not to act on American intelligence, night operations are nonetheless frequently conducted. Americans continue to provide logistical support and backup, U.S. officials say, using their aircraft to deposit Afghan soldiers at the targets.
“The Afghans are the ones who give final say on whether or not the mission gets conducted. That’s how the process works now,” said a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. “The operational tempo hasn’t been affected by this. I don’t think there’s been a night when they haven’t conducted a good number of operations.”
But the resistance to American guidance on night operations represents the clearest indication to date that Afghan military commanders are heeding a directive from President Hamid Karzai last month. Just a day after signing a 10-year bilateral agreement with the United States, Karzai said Afghan soldiers should discard questionable information provided by the U.S. military.
“If you have any doubt about an American intelligence report, do not conduct any operation based on it,” he told officials at the Interior Ministry.
The Afghan president grew even more disenchanted over the last week, when separate NATO airstrikes killed 18 civilians in Logar, Kapisa, Badghis and Helmand provinces, according to Afghan officials. The president and his advisers said the attacks raise questions about the newly minted partnership agreement.
“Karzai signed the strategic pact with the United States to avoid such incidents and if Afghans do not feel safe, the strategic partnership loses its meaning,” said a presidential statement released Monday.
In the past, such complaints would have been unlikely to affect military operations. But the transition to greater Afghan control of security has left Karzai and his military in a stronger position to stymie the American strategy.
The transition will continue in the coming months. This summer, a number of districts and provinces will be formally entrusted to Afghan security forces, the third round of regional transitions. In September, Afghans will assume responsibility for the U.S. military prison at Bagram, with about 3,000 detainees.
In the past, Western officials questioned whether Karzai’s opposition to night raids and other U.S.-led operations was politically driven — aimed at proving to his people that he was capable of resisting American demands.
Now, with more transitional milestones looming, Afghan political and military leaders say their growing responsibility has made the issue of civilian casualties even more delicate.
“Most of the people will say, ‘I don’t blame the foreigners if they kill us, but why do you kill me?’ ” Karimi said. “We have to be concerned. We have to have people on our side.”
Each time civilians are killed in either a NATO or Afghan operation, Karzai or one of his advisers calls the Defense Ministry for an explanation. Karimi said the president’s involvement in military affairs centers largely on reducing civilian casualties rather than on dictating troop levels or strategy.
NATO officials say they have greatly reduced the number of civilians killed in operations in recent years. The United Nations last year attributed 400 civilian deaths to NATO and Afghan forces, a slight decrease from 2010.
“We have significantly improved attention to detail when it comes to targeting,” a U.S. official said.
Human rights organizations say they fear that the methods and institutions developed by NATO to both track and prevent civilian casualties will not be replicated by the Afghan security forces.
“Right now, Afghan forces don’t have systems in place to prevent and respond to civilian casualties they may cause. International forces evolved their thinking over a decade, realizing they needed a civilian casualty tracking team and policies to investigate civilian harm caused by their own forces,” said Sarah Holewinski, executive director of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict. “Without those systems in place, verbal commitments from the Afghan government to not harm civilians are likely to fall flat as Afghan forces take over.”
UN Calls On NATO Summit Members To Protect Women's Rights
May 12, 2012 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
The United Nations has called on participants in next week's NATO summit to take steps to protect the rights of women in Afghanistan before foreign troops pull out of the country in 2014.
Jan Kubis, the UN's special envoy to Afghanistan, said improvements made in the education and security of Afghan women during the past decade could be lost as the government in Kabul attempts to reconcile with the Taliban and NATO troops prepare to withdraw.
Kubis's remarks were part of a joint statement issued by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, UN Women, and the UN Population Fund.
Officials attending the NATO summit in the U.S. city of Chicago on May 20-21 are due to consider funding for Afghan security forces and support for human rights.
With reporting by AFP
U.S., Pakistani Military Officials Discuss Border Security
VOA News May 12, 2012
The top U.S. commander on the NATO force in Afghanistan has met with Pakistan's army chief to discuss security issues.
The Pakistani military announced Saturday that General John Allen flew to Rawalpindi Saturday and met with General Ashfaz Parvez Kayani.
In a statement, the military said the meeting was meant to discuss operations in border areas and coordination to avoid what it called “untoward incidents.”
Pakistan closed U.S. and NATO supply routes to Afghanistan after a cross-border NATO air attack in November that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at a checkpoint.
Saturday's meeting could help ease U.S.-Pakistani tensions ahead of a NATO summit on Afghanistan in Chicago later this month.
David Cameron and Francois Hollande heading for showdown over French withdrawal from Afghanistan
David Cameron is heading for a confrontation with Francois Hollande, France's new Socialist president next week over the withdrawal of French troops from Afghanistan.
Telegraph.co.uk By James Kirkup, Ben Farmer 11 May 2012
Kabul - The Prime Minister wants Francois Hollande to reconsider his election pledge to withdraw thousands of soldiers this year, a British general has suggested.
The United States-led Nato combat mission in Afghanistan is not due to end until the end of 2014. However, the alliance is struggling to maintain a coherent approach among all its members.
Mr Hollande, elected as successor to Nicolas Sarkozy last weekend, has promised to withdraw France's 3,300 troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2012.
Instead, British and American leaders want Mr Hollande to delay the French troop drawdown until at least 2013.
They fear his current plan will spark a "rush for the exits" in Afghanistan and ruin the more gradual withdrawal timetable they want to agree at a Nato summit in Chicago next weekend.
Lt Gen Adrian Bradshaw, the deputy Nato chief in Afghanistan, said that alliance commanders "very much hope" that French forces will remain active in Afghanistan for several more years.
Mr Cameron will meet Mr Hollande for the first time next week, first at a Group of Eight meeting at Camp David, then at the Chicago summit, which starts a week on Sunday.
Lt Gen Bradshaw said French troops are making a vital contribution in Afghanistan and said he believed it "remains a very strong possibility" that Mr Hollande will be persuaded to delay a French withdrawal.
"They will take the decisions that they have to take based on their political requirements," he said. "We very much hope that they will find a way to remain active participants in this coalition through to the end of 2014. And we think that still remains a strong possibility."
Barack Obama's administration said this week it has sent a team of officials to Paris for early meetings with Mr Hollande's advisers in the hope of delaying the French withdrawal.
The Chicago meeting is scheduled to fix the timetable for Nato to hand over security operations in Afghanistan to Afghan forces over the next two years.
The potential turmoil that could follow an early Nato withdrawal from Afghanistan was highlighted by last month's wave of Taliban attacks on the capital Kabul, one of the most brazen assaults on the city since the US led invasion 10 years ago.
It comes as the Afghan government prepares to announce the handover of the last British-controlled area of Helmand, opening the way for the possible return home next year of thousands of British troops.
Nahr-e Saraj district is likely to be named among 230 areas to begin transfer to Afghan control, British officials in Kabul believe.
The announcement from Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, which may come as early as Sunday, will mean all three British-garrisoned districts will have entered the transition process allowing Afghan forces take over security duties from the Nato-led coalition.
The process will take 12 to 18 months, meaning Afghan soldiers and police are likely to take charge in the middle of next year. Lashkar Gah and Nad-e Ali, the two other British districts, began transfer last year.
Britain has around 9,500 soldiers in Afghanistan. After to bowing to requests from British commanders to slow the pace of withdrawal, Mr Cameron has said only 500 will leave this year.
However the handover of the last British territory now paves the way for a far larger withdrawal in 2013, as troops switch to training and support missions rather than combat.
PwC accused over $900m Afghan bank scandal
Finance Minister says auditors were negligent in signing off Kabul Bank accounts
The Independent By Kim Sengupta Saturday 12 May 2012
Kabul - The Pakistani branch of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is likely to be sued by the Afghan government over the collapse of a bank amid allegations of massive fraud in which $900m (£560m) went missing. The Independent has learned that a confidential report into the demise of Kabul Bank is severely critical of the performance of auditors AF Ferguson & Co, which cleared the institution's accounts for a prolonged period, leaving the way open for legal action.
The scandal was viewed as a particularly shocking example of the corruption that has become endemic under Hamid Karzai's government. One of the President's brothers, Mahmoud, was among those forced to deny complicity following accusations by a former chairman of the bank.
An investigation by forensic accountants, Kroll Associates, reveals "at a minimum level serious negligence" by PwC, according to the Afghan Finance Minister Hazrat Omar Zahkiwal. "It is likely there will be legal action, we think there is enough there in the report for this to take place," he said. "It is true that our Central Bank has a supervision branch which failed in this case. But PwC gave Kabul Bank a clean bill of health year after year and this misled the Central Bank." The British Government is providing about $4.5m towards the inquiry and an asset-recovery programme by Kroll, whose report was handed to the Afghan government in March. "What happened certainly does not look good on the government," Dr Zahkiwal said. "But even if we could have suspected our own supervisory system, we did not expect such a respectable international accountants like PwC's inability to do the job."
A memorandum from USAid, part of a previous report into the collapse by the Office of Inspector General in Washington, stated that a team from PwC had failed to identify any wrongdoing, a factor which "may have acted to delay understanding of the gravity of Kabul Bank's condition both among the examination staff and the international community." Under international pressure, President Karzai had set a deadline for the bank's principal debtors to acknowledge their responsibility and agree repayment plans, with the offer that they would thus avoid having to pay interest in the sums involved.
Proceedings are under way to seize assets in Afghanistan and Dubai, but Dr Zahkiwal acknowledged that so far only about $100m has been recovered. He insisted that progress was being made in pursuing debtors, albeit slowly. Part of the problem has been tracing assets moved abroad, including to e Gulf states, the US and western Europe.
President Karzai had also agreed to the setting up of a special court to carry out a fraud trial although, so far, there have been no significant prosecutions and no details about legal proceedings.
Sherkhan Farnood and Khalilullah Ferozi, respectively the bank's former chairman and chief executive, were arrested last year. Rahmatullah Nazari, the Deputy Attorney-General, declared that they will face trial for fraud, allegations they deny. It has been claimed that some of those arrested have been seen on the streets of Kabul. "Some of these people were released during the day," Dr Zahkiwal said. "They said they would help in recovering the money. Some spent time doing other things as well. But all attempts had to be made to get back as much as possible".
Mr Farnood had claimed that Mahmoud Karzai was one of those who had taken out loans from Kabul Bank. Mr Karzai has maintained that he repaid all loans. He stressed that he had strongly advised against some investments made by the bank and that he was prepared to co-operate with any inquiry.
In a statement yesterday via PwC,AF Ferguson & Co, said: "We are not in a position to comment... as we have not been involved in the investigation and are not privy to its findings."
A Wedding in Kabul and the Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan
The Huffington Post By Sarwar Kashmeri Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council 11/05/2012
President Obama appeared unannounced in Kabul earlier this month to sign the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement with President Karzai. Security is still so dangerous in Kabul the president had to squeak into the city during the middle of the night and his arrival was only announced after he had been helicoptered to Karzai's palace. Then the president was spirited out of Afghanistan within an hour and a half lest the Taliban wake up to the president's presence in Kabul and try to launch an attack.
The president's visit reminded me that the Afghan wife of a good friend called not long ago and asked if I'd accompany her to a wedding in Kabul. "It would be so much fun for you and I'd like to have a friend with me," she said. Tempting as the invitation was, I wondered why she wasn't taking her husband. "Oh it is much too dangerous for an American but you would be OK," she exclaimed cheerily. I was born in India and am a bit more tawny in complexion than her husband!
Ten years, over 1900 American deaths, and almost a trillion dollars later Americans cannot walk the streets of Afghanistan's capital, and the President has to slink in and out of the country in darkness. It is a tragic state of affairs, but will soon get worse.
The American and NATO plan is to create an all Afghan force of 350,000 by the end of this year and transfer responsibility for maintaining security to Afghans by 2014. This date coincides with the departure of all allied combat troops. Afghans will then be in charge of protecting their own country. NATO reports that the transfer of responsibility is proceeding apace and is on schedule.
The Afghans cannot afford to pay for the sizable force that will protect them. So in spite of the dangerous security situation the number of Afghan security forces will actually be reduced to 230,000 by the time the U.S. and NATO forces leave in 2014, according to the New York Times.
The problem is even the reduced force will cost around $4 billion to maintain which is about the size of the entire Afghan state budget. The problem will be resolved by American and other NATO countries' taxpayers who will pay for this tab.
That should be that, but this being Afghanistan it is not. According to the Christian Science Monitor,
An amount equal to the cost of operating the 230,000 force leaves Afghanistan from Kabul airport every year.
In fact, the paper says,
It is estimated $8 billion in cash was lugged out of the country last year by car, private jets and border crossings. That is almost double the entire country's budget for 2011.
In spite of these realities on the ground, the middle-of-the-night Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement's Preamble maintains that "... Afghanistan is now on a path of sustainable self-reliance in security, governance, economic and social development... "
For a change United States taxpayers seem to be ahead of this game. By a two to one margin Americans of both parties disapprove of the Strategic Agreement that also calls for a U.S. presence in Afghanistan until at least 2024.
This is how the longest American war ends. In a rush for the exits the most powerful country on earth and the most successful military alliance in history (as NATO likes to describe itself) will leave the Afghans with a security force it cannot afford; a corrupt government that smuggles American taxpayer dollars out of Afghanistan as fast as the United States can send them there; and a country in which, after the decade of war, an American cannot safely attend a wedding.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com