Tweet
Top China official visits Afghanistan, signs security deal
By Rob Taylor | Reuters
KABUL (Reuters) - China has signed security and economic agreements with Afghanistan during a rare trip to Kabul by a top Chinese official, in deals seen aimed at bolstering Beijing's influence ahead of a NATO withdrawal of most combat forces by 2014.
Zhou Yongkang, China's domestic security chief and a member of the ruling Communist Party's central Politburo, made an unannounced visit to the Afghan capital late on Saturday, holding talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at his garden palace.
Zhou's visit was the first to Afghanistan by a senior Chinese leader since 1966 and followed a visit by Karzai to Beijing in June when both countries agreed to cooperate on combating extremism in the region.
During the talks, held under tight security after violent protests in Kabul over a film which insults Islam, Zhou signed agreements on increased security and economic cooperation, including a deal to help "train, fund and equip Afghan police".
The agreement was not specific on how much assistance China planned to give the 149,000-strong police force, which is currently trained by the NATO-led coalition.
"It is in line with the fundamental interests of the two peoples for China and Afghanistan to strengthen a strategic and cooperative partnership which is also conducive to regional peace, stability and development," Zhou said in a statement, according to China's official Xinhua news agency.
Resource-hungry China, which has a small border with Afghanistan in the country's mountainous north-eastern corridor, is keen to invest in Afghan resource deposits worth as much as $1 trillion, based on U.S. Pentagon estimates.
Chinese state-owned miner China Metallurgical Group (MCC) operates the $3 billion Aynak copper mine in eastern Logar province, which has been subject to rocket attacks and other raids by insurgent groups looking to disrupt operations.
MCC won the contract to develop Aynak in 2008 and it was originally scheduled to begin production in 2013, but work has been delayed by the discovery of a huge and significant archaeological site in the area.
Zhou's visit underscores the concern in Beijing about a deterioration in security as the NATO presence in Afghanistan winds down.
It also comes after Karzai last week voiced concern about strategic pacts signed with chief ally the United States earlier this year ahead of talks starting in three weeks' time on a continued U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014.
Zhou had originally been scheduled to travel to Turkmenistan following a visit to Singapore, but diverted to Afghanistan for the meeting.
The Chinese government fully respects the right of the Afghan people to choose their own path of development and will actively participate in Afghanistan's reconstruction, Zhou told Karzai, according to Xinhua.
Karzai said security in the region "depends on the relations between Afghanistan and its neighbours", presidential spokesman Aimal Faizi said, with both countries agreeing to expand their so far limited ties.
(Additional reporting by Hamid Shalizi; Editing by Jeremy Laurence)
Time for Pakistan to take different stance on Afghanistan issue: Editorial
By ANI
Islamabad, Sept. 23 (ANI): An editorial in a Pakistani daily has said it is time for the country to take a fresh look at the whole Afghanistan 'adventure', as there is no guarantee that even if the country's proxies regain power in Kabul, they will be any more amenable to Pakistani advice and interests than in the past.
According to the editorial in the Daily Times, while Pakistan chases this impossibility, the blowback cost to the nation and society has proved crippling.
Afghanistan and Pakistan have exchanged the usual accusations and counter-accusations at the UN Security Council (UNSC). Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul told the UNSC on Thursday that attacks on Afghanistan from Pakistan were "a matter of deep and serious concern" and had caused "unprecedented anger and frustration among Afghans".
Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of staging repeated shelling barrages across the border into Kunar province. Afghanistan says the attacks have taken the lives of dozens of Afghans, mainly civilians, while leaving many wounded. Rassoul said the Afghan government was in contact with Pakistan to end the attacks "holistically and resolutely".
Despite Afghanistan's long standing accusation against Pakistan that it backs Taliban militants seeking to overthrow the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Rassoul said his country wanted "close and fruitful relations" with its neighbour. Pakistan in turn says groups of Pakistani Taliban sheltering in Afghanistan have infiltrated the border to stage attacks on its security forces, it stated.
The 'exchange' at the UNSC between the two neighbouring countries is typical of the dialogue of the deaf that has been part of their relationship for years, and in which the two sides talk 'at' rather than 'with' each other. Now that 'dialogue' is being played out once again before the UNSC. No objective observer however can ignore the history of the relations between the sometime allies (against the Afghan Communist and the Soviet Union), it added. (ANI)
Afghanistan: We have to see it through till 2014
The presence of British troops in Helmand is more controversial than ever, but another question could yet split the coalition – Iran
The Independent By Menzies Campbell Sunday 23 September 2012
They share a border, but more than that, Iran and Afghanistan share the ability to provide a severe headache for the coalition government. Afghanistan is an increasingly divisive topic in Parliament. The exchanges last week in the Commons revealed that there are both Conservative and Labour MPs, most notably Paul Flynn, who are publicly prepared to argue that the UK should "bring the troops home before Christmas", forgetting that this expression became firmly discredited when uttered in the summer of 1914.
But to leave the connotation aside, the intention is clear: we should bring an end to our operations in Afghanistan as soon as possible, and certainly before the scheduled and publicly announced date of the end of 2014. Both the Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary were quick to restate the 2014 date for withdrawal, and to reiterate that the Government would adhere to its programme of training Afghanistan forces to assume responsibility for security.
So where does this leave the Government? It is naive to suggest that, even if we began today, we could be out by Christmas. Withdrawal of nearly 10,000 troops and their equipment is not achieved by waving a wand. During any withdrawal, forces are at their most vulnerable. What additional protection measures would be required? What equipment would we be able to bring home? What equipment might fall into the hands of the Taliban? Unless you can answer these questions, talk of early withdrawal makes no sense and could be very dangerous. Rightly or wrongly, the Afghan operation has been conducted in close collaboration with the United States, and we have consistently said that we will leave together. What impact would a departure from our agreement have on our alliance with the US?
The longer we train their security forces, the better chance the people of Afghanistan will have. The bald truth is that we cannot eliminate the possibility of more casualties, and no one believes that Afghanistan will become a model European-style liberal democracy. But without the joint presence of UK and US forces, the chances of achieving sufficient stability to allow the people of Afghanistan to make a choice about their future will be reduced. It is painful to say, and to see, but we have to hold the line until 2014.
Iran poses a headache of a different kind. And once again our relationship with the US will be one of the determining factors. It is self-evident that no other relationship will be more significant than that of the US and Israel, and that between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu. The deterioration in the latter, and the more cautious expressions of opinion from within the White House and the State Department suggest that unquestioning US support for an Israeli strike can no longer be taken for granted.
Added to which there are increasing signs that some in Israel are questioning the wisdom of such a strike, not least on practical grounds. They have in mind the limited range of Israeli aircraft and the need for tanker support, the difficulty of identifying targets and the prospect of complete success: there is a risk of large-scale Israeli civilian casualties by acts of terrorism in response.
But Obama walks a dangerous electoral tightrope, at least until the presidential election in November. In the US, 75 per cent of Jewish people normally vote Democrat. A large part of the population of the state of Florida is Jewish. Florida is a swing state which, with others, will determine the outcome of the presidential election. Whatever his irritation with Netanyahu, Obama cannot risk alienating the votes of Jewish electors. Hence his equivocal response and refusal to set down "red lines" for Iran at Netanyahu's request.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, says that all options for dealing with Iran remain on the table. Understandably, he declines to accept any questions based on the hypothesis that Iran had a military nuclear capability and what the response should be. It would be by no means easy for the coalition government to obtain parliamentary endorsement for military action against Iran, whether by Israel alone or with US support. Once again, the impact on our relationship with the US would be an issue, as well as the threat of terrorist attacks against UK citizens at home or abroad. Any credible plan to contain and deter a nuclear Iran could be decisive in that debate.
To support or not to support a military strike is a decision that Obama would not like to have to make – and the same will apply to David Cameron and Nick Clegg (and Ed Miliband). Party management for all three leaders could be fraught, since it is not difficult to see different views within Parliament and within the parties themselves. Different views within the coalition would be difficult to accommodate. It is a decision that dare not speak its name. The truth is that neither of the alternatives is palatable, which is why any realistic proposal for containment and deterrent would be hugely influential against support for bombing.
For the coalition, domestic politics are difficult, but foreign affairs prove much more problematic.
Sir Menzies Campbell is a former leader of the Liberal Democrats
The Definition of a Quagmire
New Yorker By Dexter Filkins September 20, 2012
We can’t win the war in Afghanistan, so what do we do? We’ll train the Afghans to do it for us, then claim victory and head for the exits.
But what happens if we can’t train the Afghans?
We’re about to find out. It’s difficult to overstate just how calamitous the decision, announced Tuesday, to suspend most joint combat patrols between Afghan soldiers and their American and NATO mentors is. Preparing the Afghan Army and police to fight without us is the foundation of the Obama Administration’s strategy to withdraw most American forces—and have them stop fighting entirely—by the end of 2014. It’s our ticket home. As I outlined in a piece earlier this year, President Obama’s strategy amounts to an enormous gamble, and one that hasn’t, so far, shown a lot of promise. That makes this latest move all the more disturbing. We’re running out of time.
According to American military officers, the order suspends joint patrolling at the battalion-level and below without approval of a general. An American battalion is made up of about eight hundred soldiers; an Afghan battalion is about half that size. The overwhelming majority of foot patrols—and the overwhelming majority of the fighting with the Taliban—take place at this level. The order effectively means that, for now, Afghan soldiers and police operating in the field are largely on their own.
The decision, announced earlier this week, was prompted by the extraordinary rise in so-called green-on-blue attacks—the killing of Americans by Afghan soldiers. So far this year, more than fifty American and NATO soldiers have been killed by Afghan soldiers or recruits—a sixth of the three hundred and forty who have died this year. The most recent spate of green-on-blue deaths—four Americans on Sunday and two British on Saturday—coincided with a wave of anti-American riots around the world that followed the online distribution of a crude video depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a lecher and a fool.
In some ways, it would be comforting if the Afghans who were doing these killings were Taliban agents who’d slipped inside American training camps. There is some truth to this notion, but not much. When I was in Afghanistan this spring, a senior Afghan defense official told me that he and his fellow officials had little knowledge of the loyalties—or even the nationalities—of many of the new recruits. Many, he said, were presumed to have been sent by Pakistani intelligence officials from across the border. An American official told me that “several hundred” Afghan recruits, including some officers, had been identified as loyal either to the Taliban or to the Pakistanis.
As bad as that sounds, though, the reality is much worse. By the Americans’ own accounting, only ten per cent of the green-on-blue attacks have been carried out by Taliban infiltrators. The overwhelming majority of green-on-blue attacks are coming from ordinary Afghans signing up for the military. The very people we are trying to help fight the Taliban are turning their guns on us.
You can imagine the level of anxiety among American and European trainers who are sharing bases with Afghan recruits. Recent measures announced by American commanders to protect their soldiers and marines haven’t been enough. And how could they be? It’s the nature of the American mission to walk “shoulder-to-shoulder” with Afghan soldiers, who are often just as well armed as the Americans are. All you have to do is turn your gun on the guy walking next to you.
Which leads us back to the decision to ban joint patrols. When I was in Afghanistan in April and May, it was clear that the entire thrust of the American-led mission was to train Afghan forces as quickly as possible, so that we could stay on our departure schedule. The principal means to that end, I was told repeatedly by senior commanders, was carrying out operations together. (I heard the phrase “shoulder to shoulder” so often I started repeating it in my sleep.) The reason for this was simple: Afghan soldiers typically perform much better when American soldiers are with them. The Afghans fight better, feel better, and abuse each other, and Afghan civilians, less. Until this week’s decision, the commanders told me, the overwhelming majority of military operations were carried out by Afghans and Americans on joint operations. As of today, this is no longer true.
I suppose it’s possible that the decision to ban joint patrols will be lifted in a week or so, and that everything will return to normal. Possible—but not likely. The Americans have been in Afghanistan for eleven years. We can’t remain much longer because we’ve overstayed our welcome, even among our friends. And we can’t leave, either, because leaving could lead to a Taliban takeover or a very bloody civil war—and now we can barely train the local troops to take over for us.
We can’t leave and we can’t stay: that’s the very definition of a quagmire.
Seven Taliban miliants killed in Afghanistan
By Indo Asian News Service
Kabul, Sep 23 (IANS) Seven Taliban leaders were killed and a shadowy district governor detained following an overnight air raid in Afghanistan's Helmand province, a provincial police spokesperson said Sunday.
"Based on intelligence, a warplane with the NATO-led coalition forces carried out an airstrike against a Taliban hideout in Trikh Nawar area of Naway-i-Barakzai district in the wee hours Sunday, killing seven insurgent leaders, including Mullah Hazrat and Mullah Yasin," Xinhua quoted the official as saying.
Diggers set to resume Afghan patrols
Defence Minister Stephen Smith warns of the potential loss of more troops as Australia seeks permission to resume full mentoring duties in Afghanistan.
ABC
Defence Minister Stephen Smith has asked Australians to "steel themselves" for the potential loss of more troops as Australia seeks permission to resume full mentoring duties in Afghanistan.
International forces have stopped mentoring tasks below Kandak or battalion level after a series of attacks on international troops by rogue Afghan soldiers.
Mr Smith says he thinks the suspension will be lifted soon.
"It is a pause, it's not an indefinite pause, it's a pause in those arrangements," he told Channel Ten.
"We expect that in the near future we'll receive approval from ISAF to resume those but it will be done on a gradual basis."
Mr Smith has again reminded Australians to steel themselves for the possibility of more casualties.
He says it remains in the national interest to complete the mission in Afghanistan to reduce the risk of the Afghan-Pakistan border area becoming a haven for terrorism.
"We have not blinked because our core strategy remains in place and that has been made clear," Mr Smith said.
"So that core commitment and key timetables for transition remain in place."
Badghis Police Chief Accused of Raping 3 Policewomen
TOLOnews.com By Saleha Soadat Saturday, 22 September 2012
The police commander of western Badghis province Abdul Jabar Salah was accused in the Afghan parliament session on Saturday of raping three policewomen under his command.
Badghis MP Mohammad Musa Janab made the accussation in parliament, saying that President Hamid Karzai had been informed.
"The police commander of Badghis, Mr Jabar, raped three policewomen. I told President Karzi and President Karzai ordered the Ministry of Interior to dismiss him, but the Interior Ministry hasn't taken any action and they have not taken notice of this matter," Janab said.
TOLOnews has obtained a video of a woman claiming she was raped by Jabar and that she is ready to testify.
"Mr Jabar raped me by force," she says in the video. "This event is not a lie. In fact, I'm ready to tell all the people."
Jabar denied all the accusations in a telephone call with TOLOnews Saturday.
"These statements are not true," he said. "I just did not do this and I do not need to give you any more information."
Despite the MP's claims that Karzai has ordered Jabar to be investigated and dismissed, the Ministry of Interior (MOI) appears to have taken no action.
Despite TOLOnews' requests for comment Saturday, the MOI has refused to discuss the matter.
In March, US radio station NPR reported from Balkh province's Mazar-e-Sharif that policewomen were facing systemic sexual coercion and even rape by male colleagues.
Policewomen interviewed for the report said that they were ashamed to admit they were in the police force because the sexual abuse of the female officers was so well-known.
Bagram Delay is Inexcusable: Stanikzai
TOLOnews.com By Abdul Wali Arian Saturday, 22 September 2012
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's legal advisor said Saturday that foreign countries had no excuse for holding prisoners in Afghanistan, even if the imprisoned were considered dangerous.
Chairman of the Karzai's Legal Consultative Board Nasrullah Stanikzai said the continued delay of the US to hand over the remaining 600-plus prisoners in the Bagram detention facility to Afghan control was inexcusable.
"We have no concerns about keeping these prisoners. And we admit no excuse for a prisoner to be in hands of a foreign country for the reason that they are dangerous or not dangerous," he told TOLOnews Saturday.
However, others warn that if prisoners at Bagram prison are not screened and judged, there is a risk they will be released with impunity.
"The government of Afghanistan is not capable of keeping these prisoners. If these prisoners are not judged and their cases are not inspected by a fair judgment, the culture of impunity will spread in the country," civil society activist Ajmal Baloochzada told TOLOnews Saturday.
Baloochzada's reiterate concerns that Karzai will release some of these prisoners after requests for a presidential pardon from elders of the tribes or families to which the prisoners belong, as has happened in the past.
The greater fear is that the prisoners, mostly captured for having links to incidents related to insurgency or during actual battles with security forces, will rejoin the insurgent groups once released.
The American's handed control of their only large-scale prison in Afghanistan at Bagram military base to the Afghans almost a fortnight ago, as per an agreement signed in March. However, the US only handed over 3000 prisoners and the building proper, while retaining control of around 630 prisoners saying it still needed to do further screening on them.
Karzai has publicly denounced the delay in meetings with officials and in a public release, saying last week that any further postponement is a breach of the agreement and an insult to Afghanistan's sovereignty.
MPs Rescind Information Minister Summons
TOLOnews.com By Sahela Soadat Saturday, 22 September 2012
Nineteen of the 69 Afghan lawmakers who signed a request for the Minister of Information and Culture to appear for questioning have rescinded their signatures, Parliament heard Saturday.
Deputy speaker of the Parliament Mohammad Farhad said that after signing the request a fortnight ago to summon the Afghan Minister of Information and Culture Dr. Sayed Makhdoon Raheen to Parliament, 19 of the MPs withdrew their request via a written letter.
"Nineteen MPs out of the sixty-nine who signed a request for summoning of the Minister of Information and Culture, have rescinded their signatures," Azimi said.
"Helai Ershad, Farhad Majidi, Habiburrahman, Gol Afghan, Amir Khanyar, Mawlawi Abdurrahman Rahmani, Mahmood Khan Suleimankheil, Chamanshah Etemadi, Munawarshah Bahadori, Sherwali Ahmadzai, Mohammad Yousof Saber, Abdulqayoum Sajadi, Naqibullah Faiq, Haji Mohammad Hashem, BashirAhmad Tayanj, Dr Babar Farahmand, and Abdulsabour Khedmat are among the MPs who are rescinded their signatures," he added.
The Information Minister was expected to appear before Parliament today but was no longer required to do so as there were not enough MPs requesting it.
The removal of 19 signatures was hotly debated among the lawmakers, with some accusing those who rescinded of putting their personal or financial interests first.
"What will people think about the parliament? Are those previous claims that MPs do personal dealings to get money true?" Zabul MP Abdulqader Qalatwal said.
Kabul MP Shukria Barakzai said that the ministers should not be allowed to change their minds in this way.
"If we treat the ministers' summoning in this way, it shall be the same for vote of confidence. For instance, we voted for confidence of ministers' yesterday, and we take it back today saying we have changed our minds," she said.
Others supported the move.
"This is an MPs right - to take back today what they have signed yesterday," Badakhshan MP Fawzia Koofi said.
The decision to summon Raheen was made on a number of matters related to him, including the renaming of a road in Balkh province's capital Mazar-e-Sharif and his attendance at a live concert on one of the holiest days in Ramadan.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com
By Rob Taylor | Reuters
KABUL (Reuters) - China has signed security and economic agreements with Afghanistan during a rare trip to Kabul by a top Chinese official, in deals seen aimed at bolstering Beijing's influence ahead of a NATO withdrawal of most combat forces by 2014.
Zhou Yongkang, China's domestic security chief and a member of the ruling Communist Party's central Politburo, made an unannounced visit to the Afghan capital late on Saturday, holding talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at his garden palace.
Zhou's visit was the first to Afghanistan by a senior Chinese leader since 1966 and followed a visit by Karzai to Beijing in June when both countries agreed to cooperate on combating extremism in the region.
During the talks, held under tight security after violent protests in Kabul over a film which insults Islam, Zhou signed agreements on increased security and economic cooperation, including a deal to help "train, fund and equip Afghan police".
The agreement was not specific on how much assistance China planned to give the 149,000-strong police force, which is currently trained by the NATO-led coalition.
"It is in line with the fundamental interests of the two peoples for China and Afghanistan to strengthen a strategic and cooperative partnership which is also conducive to regional peace, stability and development," Zhou said in a statement, according to China's official Xinhua news agency.
Resource-hungry China, which has a small border with Afghanistan in the country's mountainous north-eastern corridor, is keen to invest in Afghan resource deposits worth as much as $1 trillion, based on U.S. Pentagon estimates.
Chinese state-owned miner China Metallurgical Group (MCC) operates the $3 billion Aynak copper mine in eastern Logar province, which has been subject to rocket attacks and other raids by insurgent groups looking to disrupt operations.
MCC won the contract to develop Aynak in 2008 and it was originally scheduled to begin production in 2013, but work has been delayed by the discovery of a huge and significant archaeological site in the area.
Zhou's visit underscores the concern in Beijing about a deterioration in security as the NATO presence in Afghanistan winds down.
It also comes after Karzai last week voiced concern about strategic pacts signed with chief ally the United States earlier this year ahead of talks starting in three weeks' time on a continued U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014.
Zhou had originally been scheduled to travel to Turkmenistan following a visit to Singapore, but diverted to Afghanistan for the meeting.
The Chinese government fully respects the right of the Afghan people to choose their own path of development and will actively participate in Afghanistan's reconstruction, Zhou told Karzai, according to Xinhua.
Karzai said security in the region "depends on the relations between Afghanistan and its neighbours", presidential spokesman Aimal Faizi said, with both countries agreeing to expand their so far limited ties.
(Additional reporting by Hamid Shalizi; Editing by Jeremy Laurence)
Time for Pakistan to take different stance on Afghanistan issue: Editorial
By ANI
Islamabad, Sept. 23 (ANI): An editorial in a Pakistani daily has said it is time for the country to take a fresh look at the whole Afghanistan 'adventure', as there is no guarantee that even if the country's proxies regain power in Kabul, they will be any more amenable to Pakistani advice and interests than in the past.
According to the editorial in the Daily Times, while Pakistan chases this impossibility, the blowback cost to the nation and society has proved crippling.
Afghanistan and Pakistan have exchanged the usual accusations and counter-accusations at the UN Security Council (UNSC). Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul told the UNSC on Thursday that attacks on Afghanistan from Pakistan were "a matter of deep and serious concern" and had caused "unprecedented anger and frustration among Afghans".
Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of staging repeated shelling barrages across the border into Kunar province. Afghanistan says the attacks have taken the lives of dozens of Afghans, mainly civilians, while leaving many wounded. Rassoul said the Afghan government was in contact with Pakistan to end the attacks "holistically and resolutely".
Despite Afghanistan's long standing accusation against Pakistan that it backs Taliban militants seeking to overthrow the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Rassoul said his country wanted "close and fruitful relations" with its neighbour. Pakistan in turn says groups of Pakistani Taliban sheltering in Afghanistan have infiltrated the border to stage attacks on its security forces, it stated.
The 'exchange' at the UNSC between the two neighbouring countries is typical of the dialogue of the deaf that has been part of their relationship for years, and in which the two sides talk 'at' rather than 'with' each other. Now that 'dialogue' is being played out once again before the UNSC. No objective observer however can ignore the history of the relations between the sometime allies (against the Afghan Communist and the Soviet Union), it added. (ANI)
Afghanistan: We have to see it through till 2014
The presence of British troops in Helmand is more controversial than ever, but another question could yet split the coalition – Iran
The Independent By Menzies Campbell Sunday 23 September 2012
They share a border, but more than that, Iran and Afghanistan share the ability to provide a severe headache for the coalition government. Afghanistan is an increasingly divisive topic in Parliament. The exchanges last week in the Commons revealed that there are both Conservative and Labour MPs, most notably Paul Flynn, who are publicly prepared to argue that the UK should "bring the troops home before Christmas", forgetting that this expression became firmly discredited when uttered in the summer of 1914.
But to leave the connotation aside, the intention is clear: we should bring an end to our operations in Afghanistan as soon as possible, and certainly before the scheduled and publicly announced date of the end of 2014. Both the Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary were quick to restate the 2014 date for withdrawal, and to reiterate that the Government would adhere to its programme of training Afghanistan forces to assume responsibility for security.
So where does this leave the Government? It is naive to suggest that, even if we began today, we could be out by Christmas. Withdrawal of nearly 10,000 troops and their equipment is not achieved by waving a wand. During any withdrawal, forces are at their most vulnerable. What additional protection measures would be required? What equipment would we be able to bring home? What equipment might fall into the hands of the Taliban? Unless you can answer these questions, talk of early withdrawal makes no sense and could be very dangerous. Rightly or wrongly, the Afghan operation has been conducted in close collaboration with the United States, and we have consistently said that we will leave together. What impact would a departure from our agreement have on our alliance with the US?
The longer we train their security forces, the better chance the people of Afghanistan will have. The bald truth is that we cannot eliminate the possibility of more casualties, and no one believes that Afghanistan will become a model European-style liberal democracy. But without the joint presence of UK and US forces, the chances of achieving sufficient stability to allow the people of Afghanistan to make a choice about their future will be reduced. It is painful to say, and to see, but we have to hold the line until 2014.
Iran poses a headache of a different kind. And once again our relationship with the US will be one of the determining factors. It is self-evident that no other relationship will be more significant than that of the US and Israel, and that between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu. The deterioration in the latter, and the more cautious expressions of opinion from within the White House and the State Department suggest that unquestioning US support for an Israeli strike can no longer be taken for granted.
Added to which there are increasing signs that some in Israel are questioning the wisdom of such a strike, not least on practical grounds. They have in mind the limited range of Israeli aircraft and the need for tanker support, the difficulty of identifying targets and the prospect of complete success: there is a risk of large-scale Israeli civilian casualties by acts of terrorism in response.
But Obama walks a dangerous electoral tightrope, at least until the presidential election in November. In the US, 75 per cent of Jewish people normally vote Democrat. A large part of the population of the state of Florida is Jewish. Florida is a swing state which, with others, will determine the outcome of the presidential election. Whatever his irritation with Netanyahu, Obama cannot risk alienating the votes of Jewish electors. Hence his equivocal response and refusal to set down "red lines" for Iran at Netanyahu's request.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, says that all options for dealing with Iran remain on the table. Understandably, he declines to accept any questions based on the hypothesis that Iran had a military nuclear capability and what the response should be. It would be by no means easy for the coalition government to obtain parliamentary endorsement for military action against Iran, whether by Israel alone or with US support. Once again, the impact on our relationship with the US would be an issue, as well as the threat of terrorist attacks against UK citizens at home or abroad. Any credible plan to contain and deter a nuclear Iran could be decisive in that debate.
To support or not to support a military strike is a decision that Obama would not like to have to make – and the same will apply to David Cameron and Nick Clegg (and Ed Miliband). Party management for all three leaders could be fraught, since it is not difficult to see different views within Parliament and within the parties themselves. Different views within the coalition would be difficult to accommodate. It is a decision that dare not speak its name. The truth is that neither of the alternatives is palatable, which is why any realistic proposal for containment and deterrent would be hugely influential against support for bombing.
For the coalition, domestic politics are difficult, but foreign affairs prove much more problematic.
Sir Menzies Campbell is a former leader of the Liberal Democrats
The Definition of a Quagmire
New Yorker By Dexter Filkins September 20, 2012
We can’t win the war in Afghanistan, so what do we do? We’ll train the Afghans to do it for us, then claim victory and head for the exits.
But what happens if we can’t train the Afghans?
We’re about to find out. It’s difficult to overstate just how calamitous the decision, announced Tuesday, to suspend most joint combat patrols between Afghan soldiers and their American and NATO mentors is. Preparing the Afghan Army and police to fight without us is the foundation of the Obama Administration’s strategy to withdraw most American forces—and have them stop fighting entirely—by the end of 2014. It’s our ticket home. As I outlined in a piece earlier this year, President Obama’s strategy amounts to an enormous gamble, and one that hasn’t, so far, shown a lot of promise. That makes this latest move all the more disturbing. We’re running out of time.
According to American military officers, the order suspends joint patrolling at the battalion-level and below without approval of a general. An American battalion is made up of about eight hundred soldiers; an Afghan battalion is about half that size. The overwhelming majority of foot patrols—and the overwhelming majority of the fighting with the Taliban—take place at this level. The order effectively means that, for now, Afghan soldiers and police operating in the field are largely on their own.
The decision, announced earlier this week, was prompted by the extraordinary rise in so-called green-on-blue attacks—the killing of Americans by Afghan soldiers. So far this year, more than fifty American and NATO soldiers have been killed by Afghan soldiers or recruits—a sixth of the three hundred and forty who have died this year. The most recent spate of green-on-blue deaths—four Americans on Sunday and two British on Saturday—coincided with a wave of anti-American riots around the world that followed the online distribution of a crude video depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a lecher and a fool.
In some ways, it would be comforting if the Afghans who were doing these killings were Taliban agents who’d slipped inside American training camps. There is some truth to this notion, but not much. When I was in Afghanistan this spring, a senior Afghan defense official told me that he and his fellow officials had little knowledge of the loyalties—or even the nationalities—of many of the new recruits. Many, he said, were presumed to have been sent by Pakistani intelligence officials from across the border. An American official told me that “several hundred” Afghan recruits, including some officers, had been identified as loyal either to the Taliban or to the Pakistanis.
As bad as that sounds, though, the reality is much worse. By the Americans’ own accounting, only ten per cent of the green-on-blue attacks have been carried out by Taliban infiltrators. The overwhelming majority of green-on-blue attacks are coming from ordinary Afghans signing up for the military. The very people we are trying to help fight the Taliban are turning their guns on us.
You can imagine the level of anxiety among American and European trainers who are sharing bases with Afghan recruits. Recent measures announced by American commanders to protect their soldiers and marines haven’t been enough. And how could they be? It’s the nature of the American mission to walk “shoulder-to-shoulder” with Afghan soldiers, who are often just as well armed as the Americans are. All you have to do is turn your gun on the guy walking next to you.
Which leads us back to the decision to ban joint patrols. When I was in Afghanistan in April and May, it was clear that the entire thrust of the American-led mission was to train Afghan forces as quickly as possible, so that we could stay on our departure schedule. The principal means to that end, I was told repeatedly by senior commanders, was carrying out operations together. (I heard the phrase “shoulder to shoulder” so often I started repeating it in my sleep.) The reason for this was simple: Afghan soldiers typically perform much better when American soldiers are with them. The Afghans fight better, feel better, and abuse each other, and Afghan civilians, less. Until this week’s decision, the commanders told me, the overwhelming majority of military operations were carried out by Afghans and Americans on joint operations. As of today, this is no longer true.
I suppose it’s possible that the decision to ban joint patrols will be lifted in a week or so, and that everything will return to normal. Possible—but not likely. The Americans have been in Afghanistan for eleven years. We can’t remain much longer because we’ve overstayed our welcome, even among our friends. And we can’t leave, either, because leaving could lead to a Taliban takeover or a very bloody civil war—and now we can barely train the local troops to take over for us.
We can’t leave and we can’t stay: that’s the very definition of a quagmire.
Seven Taliban miliants killed in Afghanistan
By Indo Asian News Service
Kabul, Sep 23 (IANS) Seven Taliban leaders were killed and a shadowy district governor detained following an overnight air raid in Afghanistan's Helmand province, a provincial police spokesperson said Sunday.
"Based on intelligence, a warplane with the NATO-led coalition forces carried out an airstrike against a Taliban hideout in Trikh Nawar area of Naway-i-Barakzai district in the wee hours Sunday, killing seven insurgent leaders, including Mullah Hazrat and Mullah Yasin," Xinhua quoted the official as saying.
Diggers set to resume Afghan patrols
Defence Minister Stephen Smith warns of the potential loss of more troops as Australia seeks permission to resume full mentoring duties in Afghanistan.
ABC
Defence Minister Stephen Smith has asked Australians to "steel themselves" for the potential loss of more troops as Australia seeks permission to resume full mentoring duties in Afghanistan.
International forces have stopped mentoring tasks below Kandak or battalion level after a series of attacks on international troops by rogue Afghan soldiers.
Mr Smith says he thinks the suspension will be lifted soon.
"It is a pause, it's not an indefinite pause, it's a pause in those arrangements," he told Channel Ten.
"We expect that in the near future we'll receive approval from ISAF to resume those but it will be done on a gradual basis."
Mr Smith has again reminded Australians to steel themselves for the possibility of more casualties.
He says it remains in the national interest to complete the mission in Afghanistan to reduce the risk of the Afghan-Pakistan border area becoming a haven for terrorism.
"We have not blinked because our core strategy remains in place and that has been made clear," Mr Smith said.
"So that core commitment and key timetables for transition remain in place."
Badghis Police Chief Accused of Raping 3 Policewomen
TOLOnews.com By Saleha Soadat Saturday, 22 September 2012
The police commander of western Badghis province Abdul Jabar Salah was accused in the Afghan parliament session on Saturday of raping three policewomen under his command.
Badghis MP Mohammad Musa Janab made the accussation in parliament, saying that President Hamid Karzai had been informed.
"The police commander of Badghis, Mr Jabar, raped three policewomen. I told President Karzi and President Karzai ordered the Ministry of Interior to dismiss him, but the Interior Ministry hasn't taken any action and they have not taken notice of this matter," Janab said.
TOLOnews has obtained a video of a woman claiming she was raped by Jabar and that she is ready to testify.
"Mr Jabar raped me by force," she says in the video. "This event is not a lie. In fact, I'm ready to tell all the people."
Jabar denied all the accusations in a telephone call with TOLOnews Saturday.
"These statements are not true," he said. "I just did not do this and I do not need to give you any more information."
Despite the MP's claims that Karzai has ordered Jabar to be investigated and dismissed, the Ministry of Interior (MOI) appears to have taken no action.
Despite TOLOnews' requests for comment Saturday, the MOI has refused to discuss the matter.
In March, US radio station NPR reported from Balkh province's Mazar-e-Sharif that policewomen were facing systemic sexual coercion and even rape by male colleagues.
Policewomen interviewed for the report said that they were ashamed to admit they were in the police force because the sexual abuse of the female officers was so well-known.
Bagram Delay is Inexcusable: Stanikzai
TOLOnews.com By Abdul Wali Arian Saturday, 22 September 2012
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's legal advisor said Saturday that foreign countries had no excuse for holding prisoners in Afghanistan, even if the imprisoned were considered dangerous.
Chairman of the Karzai's Legal Consultative Board Nasrullah Stanikzai said the continued delay of the US to hand over the remaining 600-plus prisoners in the Bagram detention facility to Afghan control was inexcusable.
"We have no concerns about keeping these prisoners. And we admit no excuse for a prisoner to be in hands of a foreign country for the reason that they are dangerous or not dangerous," he told TOLOnews Saturday.
However, others warn that if prisoners at Bagram prison are not screened and judged, there is a risk they will be released with impunity.
"The government of Afghanistan is not capable of keeping these prisoners. If these prisoners are not judged and their cases are not inspected by a fair judgment, the culture of impunity will spread in the country," civil society activist Ajmal Baloochzada told TOLOnews Saturday.
Baloochzada's reiterate concerns that Karzai will release some of these prisoners after requests for a presidential pardon from elders of the tribes or families to which the prisoners belong, as has happened in the past.
The greater fear is that the prisoners, mostly captured for having links to incidents related to insurgency or during actual battles with security forces, will rejoin the insurgent groups once released.
The American's handed control of their only large-scale prison in Afghanistan at Bagram military base to the Afghans almost a fortnight ago, as per an agreement signed in March. However, the US only handed over 3000 prisoners and the building proper, while retaining control of around 630 prisoners saying it still needed to do further screening on them.
Karzai has publicly denounced the delay in meetings with officials and in a public release, saying last week that any further postponement is a breach of the agreement and an insult to Afghanistan's sovereignty.
MPs Rescind Information Minister Summons
TOLOnews.com By Sahela Soadat Saturday, 22 September 2012
Nineteen of the 69 Afghan lawmakers who signed a request for the Minister of Information and Culture to appear for questioning have rescinded their signatures, Parliament heard Saturday.
Deputy speaker of the Parliament Mohammad Farhad said that after signing the request a fortnight ago to summon the Afghan Minister of Information and Culture Dr. Sayed Makhdoon Raheen to Parliament, 19 of the MPs withdrew their request via a written letter.
"Nineteen MPs out of the sixty-nine who signed a request for summoning of the Minister of Information and Culture, have rescinded their signatures," Azimi said.
"Helai Ershad, Farhad Majidi, Habiburrahman, Gol Afghan, Amir Khanyar, Mawlawi Abdurrahman Rahmani, Mahmood Khan Suleimankheil, Chamanshah Etemadi, Munawarshah Bahadori, Sherwali Ahmadzai, Mohammad Yousof Saber, Abdulqayoum Sajadi, Naqibullah Faiq, Haji Mohammad Hashem, BashirAhmad Tayanj, Dr Babar Farahmand, and Abdulsabour Khedmat are among the MPs who are rescinded their signatures," he added.
The Information Minister was expected to appear before Parliament today but was no longer required to do so as there were not enough MPs requesting it.
The removal of 19 signatures was hotly debated among the lawmakers, with some accusing those who rescinded of putting their personal or financial interests first.
"What will people think about the parliament? Are those previous claims that MPs do personal dealings to get money true?" Zabul MP Abdulqader Qalatwal said.
Kabul MP Shukria Barakzai said that the ministers should not be allowed to change their minds in this way.
"If we treat the ministers' summoning in this way, it shall be the same for vote of confidence. For instance, we voted for confidence of ministers' yesterday, and we take it back today saying we have changed our minds," she said.
Others supported the move.
"This is an MPs right - to take back today what they have signed yesterday," Badakhshan MP Fawzia Koofi said.
The decision to summon Raheen was made on a number of matters related to him, including the renaming of a road in Balkh province's capital Mazar-e-Sharif and his attendance at a live concert on one of the holiest days in Ramadan.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com