Tweet
Panetta Confers With New Afghan Defense, Interior Ministers
October 2, 2012 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has spoken by telephone with Afghanistan's defense and interior ministers about preventing insider attacks on NATO and Afghan forces.
It was the first time Panetta had spoken to Afghan Defense Minister Bismillah Khan Mohammadi and Interior Minister Ghulam Mujtaba Patang since their appointments to the positions.
The call comes after a suicide bomber killed 14 people -- including three NATO soldiers and four police -- in a suicide bomb attack in eastern Afghanistan on October 1.
Provincial Governor Abdul Jabar Nahimi said the bomber had been riding a motorcycle packed with explosives and that 37 civilians were wounded in the blast in the city of Khost.
The Taliban has claimed responsibility.
Based on reporting by Reuters, AP, and AFP
Suspend the Afghan-Pakistan Strategic Agreement: Parliament
TOLOnews.com By Rafi Sediqi Monday, 01 October 2012
Afghan lawmakers on Monday said that the planned strategic agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan is meaningless and any work on it should be suspended until the country stops cross-border shelling into Afghanistan's eastern regions.
Several Afghan lawmakers including the speaker of the House Abdul Raouf Ibrahimi slammed discussions of a long-term deal between the two countries.
"Afghan people are the victims of violence and terrorism and Pakistan is the real cause of that," Ibrahim said. "The Afghan government should closely monitor the contents of the strategic agreement and consider the issue of Pakistan being a supporter and facilitator of insurgents in Afghanistan."
Ghazni MP Ali Akbar Qasimi said that he believes signing a deal with Pakistan is premature and should be delayed.
"Signing the strategic agreement with Pakistan is untimely because Pakistan is now shelling the eastern provinces," Qasimi said.
"It should be delayed until it changes its strategy and position against Afghanistan."
Kunar MP Saleh Mohammad Saleh called the agreement meaningless given just days ago Pakistani military were warning residents in up to 15 districts of the eastern provinces to leave their homes or be caught up in their incursion.
MPs also claimed that Pakistan had clearly violated the United Nations Security Council 1373 (2001) Resolution which says all nations must prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, as well as criminalise the willful provision or collection of funds for such acts, and to not allow their territory to be used as the terrorism fundraising efforts.
"Pakistan is violating the 1373 (2001) United Nations Security Council Resolution which prohibits the funding of terrorist networks and obliges nations to take strong action against such networks. The United Nations should prevent Pakistan's continued shelling on Afghanistan's eastern provinces and impose sanctions against them," Kabul MP Baktash Siawash said.
The signing of an Afghanistan-Pakistan strategic pact by the end of 2013 was decided upon by the presidents of both countries in their meeting in the US last week.
Afghan militancy gets thrust with 30 people killed in 2 days
by Abdul Haleem, Chen Xin
KABUL, Oct. 2 (Xinhua) -- Militancy in the conflict-ridden Afghanistan has got new momentum as 30 people including 11 Taliban militants and three soldiers with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force have been killed over the past two days.
In the latest incident that has claimed the lives of anti- government militants was the explosion of ammunition in Taliban former stronghold Kandahar late Monday night which left 11 Taliban fighters dead, Kandahar provincial administration confirmed in a statement released here Tuesday.
"A powerful blast took place in a weapon and ammunition cache of Taliban outfit killing 11 militants on the spot which occurred in Kanjoso area of Spin Boldak district bordering Pakistan late Monday night," the statement added.
Two Taliban commanders are among those killed in the deadly blast, the statement emphasized.
However, Taliban militants fighting the government are yet to make comment.
A previous security incident, which happened in the shape of suicide bombing and rattled the eastern Khost province early Monday, claimed the lives of 16 people, mostly civilians, and injured scores others.
"In the coward terror attack which took place at 08:30 a.m. local time Monday, the suicide bomber blew him up in the provincial capital Khost city, killing 16 people including 10 innocent civilians and injuring 61 others including three police," a statement of the Khost provincial government sent to media outlets asserted.
Six policemen including Mubarak Shah, commander of the Rapid Reaction Force, are among those killed in the bloody suicide bombing, the statement confirmed.
Three NATO soldiers were also killed in the blast, the alliance confirmed in a statement released here.
Zabihullah Mujahid who claims to speak for the Taliban outfit in talks with media via telephone from unknown location claimed responsibility for the deadly attack, saying a Taliban fighter named Shoaib Kunduzi had carried out the suicide bombing that killed several Afghans and foreign soldiers including six Americans and an interpreter.
Often the non-combatants have been bearing the brunt of endemic conflict in Afghanistan.
A total of 1,145 Afghan civilians were killed and 1,954 injured in conflicts and violent security mishaps in the first six months this year in insurgency-hit Afghanistan, 15 percent down in overall civilian casualties from a year earlier, according to a United Nations report released in Kabul on Aug. 8.
The UN report, however, attributed 80 percent of the civilian deaths to the attacks committed by Taliban insurgents and other armed groups opposing the Afghan government. Another 10 percent of the deaths were attributed to Afghan and NATO-led forces and the remaining 10 percent were unattributed.
Self-Described 'Redneck' Takes On Kabul Art Scene
By Frud Bezhan October 2, 2012 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
"I'm an Afghan by blood and a redneck by the grace of God," Aman Mojadidi says in introducing himself. "I'm an atheist and a radically politicized artist."
Nine years ago, the Afghan-born American performance artist returned from Florida to his native Kabul. In that time the 41-year-old has made a name for himself as a leading provocateur within the Afghan capital's emerging art scene.
Through various art forms, including film, photography, and public installation projects, Mojadidi has waged a relentless campaign against what he sees as the excesses of the Afghan government and political stagnation in the war-torn country he was forced to flee as a child.
Mojadidi's chief targets have been corruption, which he says permeates all levels of society, and the monopolization of political power by the country's former warlords and militia leaders.
"The rampant corruption manifests itself here in a way that it affects everyone, not just the higher levels of politics. I also think [a problem] is the political control in the hands of jihadist leaders," Mojadidi says.
"I don't think the country will be able to really move forward as a nation until political power ceases to be in the hands of those who rest all their authority on the fact that they did jihad against the Soviet Union," he adds. "They are keeping the country stagnated in that period."
'Jihadi Gangster'
That criticism has been evident in several prominent projects.
In "Payback," a video installation released in 2009, Mojadidi impersonated a police officer and set up a fake police checkpoint in Kabul. But instead of asking for a bribe, he offered money to baffled motorists and apologized on behalf of the Kabul police department for any bribes they may have paid in the past.
Mojadidi took things a step further when, during the country's parliamentary elections in 2010, he secretly plastered fake campaign posters of himself on streets across Kabul. The posters, which show Mojadidi in a black turban with a gold-plated pistol hanging around his neck, read: "Vote for me! I've done jihad -- and I'm rich."
Met with rave reviews, Mojadidi's work has gained global exposure through exhibits from the United States and Europe to Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
Speaking Truth To Power
Some, predictably, take offense to pictures depicting him as a warlord sitting beside his golden wooden leg, trying to watch television while a scantily-clad, burqa-wearing woman tries to get his attention.
By the same token, photos of him sitting in a barber shop adorned in a Confederate flag, swilling Budweiser beer, might rub some in the religiously conservative country the wrong way.
But while Mojadidi has occasionally come into conflict with the Afghan authorities, he has never been formally charged. And he has answers for his critics.
Working in Afghanistan has been "schizophrenic," Mojadidi says. He insists that although the country is a "junkman's paradise" in terms of artistic practice, the development of the Afghan art scene is being held back by religious radicals and powerful politicians keen on stifling criticism.
"There are these religious and political constrictions on what can be exhibited and what can be shown publicly," he says. "If it's critical of the religion of Islam or critical of some of these power-holders, then one runs the risk of being at the least censored and at the most potentially imprisoned or facing some sort of charges."
His artwork has also strained his family ties. Mojadidi admits that he now has a "love-hate relationship" with his uncle, Sibghatullah Mojadidi, a powerful former mujahedin and onetime interim Afghan president who now heads the opposition National Liberation Front political party.
"He doesn't necessarily agree with my lifestyle or the way I carry my life forward or the choices that I make," Mojadidi says. "In general, we tend to get along quite well but I don't in the end know whether he fully understands the scope of some of the work that I'm doing."
Giving Something Back
Mojadidi says the Afghan art scene is still developing, and suffers from a lack of galleries, museums, and exhibitions. He says many art projects in the country are driven by foreign cultural centers and organizations, rather than by Afghan artists themselves.
Truly indigenous art might only take root when foreign funding phases out and Afghan artists are forced to make do with what little is available to them, he says.
"The art scene here is still very nascent," Mojadidi says. "It's still very much driven by the development system that's been in place here for the last decade. There is a foreign cultural center or a foreign NGO that's interested in doing a project as opposed to really being something that has taken root [in Afghanistan]."
After exhibiting his work in Kassel, Germany, for the past three months, Mojadidi is heading to Paris, where his new short film will be screened from October 8 at the Palais de Tokyo, one of Europe's largest centers for contemporary art.
The film, titled "Memories Lay in Ruin amidst a Garden on Earth While Birds & Planes Battle for the Sky," is a conceptual perspective on the notion of a lost Garden of Eden.
"The film shows the remaining wall of an Angur Khana, where grapes were hung to dry into raisins by my family. The compound this wall is a part of was the old Mojadidi fort just outside Kabul, where my family lived," Mojadidi says.
"It was a fully self-sufficient community with orchards, livestock, a bakery, and farm with crops. A sort of 'Eden' that was later destroyed by the Soviets after their invasion and the family's joining of the armed resistance movement against them."
Despite a busy schedule that will see him visit India in the next several months, the dusty streets of Kabul are never far away from Mojadidi's thoughts.
What drives him to labor every day in the hostile conditions in Afghanistan, he says, is the same reason he moved back to the country in the first place.
"What moved me here has a lot to do with doing something to contribute to Afghanistan and to do something to help Afghanistan in some way," Mojadidi says. "There's also a desire to get to know my cultural heritage and try and connect more with that heritage."
Afghanistan's Security Ministers Visit Border of Pakistan
TOLOnews.com By Sonil Haidari, Miriwais Sahil Monday, 01 October 2012
Afghanistan's top security officials in the government visited eastern Nangarhar province Monday to investigate the increasing claims of unrest along the border with Pakistan.
Minister of Defense Gen. Bismillah Mohammadi and Minister of Interior Mujtaba Patang were in Nangarhar's Ghoshta district Monday morning to discuss with residents about the ongoing shelling of Afghan territory from Pakistan's side of the border.
Mohammadi told reporters accompanying his visit that the aim of the trip was to assess and solve it diplomatically.
"We don't want to start a war," he said Monday. "We are discussing the problems with the residents and we want to resolve it in a diplomatic way."
He reiterated that they are also working on the Pakistani government to put an end to any shelling into Afghanistan.
"We will ask Pakistan to stop the shelling and we are also following up the problem with the United Nation's [Security Council] to pressure Pakistan over the shelling in Afghanistan territory," he said.
The visit comes four days after the Pakistan military allegedly warned the residents of Ghoshta and Lalpoor districts to leave the area or risk being targeted.
Meanwhile, Patang repeated his statement in Parliament last week that the Afghan border police will be reinforced.
"We will equip and increase the number of border police in the bordering districts. Our forces can defend their territory," the Interior Minister said.
Both the Ghoshta and Lalpoor districts share their eastern border with Pakistan and have seen an increase in missile attacks from the east over the past year. Ghostha is normally a more peaceful district in the province.
Nangarhar provincial governor Gul Agha Shirzoi warned Pakistan that if the shelling continues, Afghanistan will soon retaliate.
"If Pakistan again starts shelling, we will respond with similar attacks by the Afghan army," he said Monday.
According to reports, hundreds of families in Lalpoor district and other eastern provinces such as Kunar have fled their homes due to the ongoing threats.
Last week, Afghan President Hamid Karzai talked about the challenges facing the Afghan and Pakistan governments in his address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York
"We are deeply committed to our brotherly relations with Pakistan, but are aware of the challenges that may strain our efforts at building trust and confidence," Karzai said.
"Such incidents as the recent shelling of Afghan villages risk undermining the efforts by both governments to work together in the interest of our common security."
Paul Ryan attacks Afghanistan drawdown: ‘They’re still fighting’
Washington Post By Felicia Sonmez October 1, 2012
GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan had some sharp criticism for President Obama on Afghanistan Monday morning, telling conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that the president put political considerations before national security with his decision to draw down tens of thousands of “surge” troops during the height of the fighting season.
“They just pulled about 22,000 troops in September — which to me is a political decision to have a drawdown before an election — but we’re still giving our soldiers the same mission, the same counter-insurgency mission,” Ryan told Ingraham.
He added: “They’re still fighting. We pulled out 22,000 while our people are being shot at and we’re sending fewer people out to do the same job, which makes them less safe. That politicization of these decisions is something we would never do. We would never put politics ahead of what our commanders say is necessary to do the job and keep our soldiers as safe as possible when they’re prosecuting this war.”
The argument is one that the GOP ticket has made before, but Ryan’s interview Monday represented some of his harshest criticism of Obama on the issue to date.
The drawdown is in keeping with Obama’s timetable to pull out all conventional combat forces by the end of 2014, a withdrawal date Romney and Ryan both support.
U.S. Abandoning Hopes for Taliban Peace Deal
New York Times By MATTHEW ROSENBERG and ROD NORDLAND October 1, 2012
KABUL, Afghanistan - With the surge of American troops over and the Taliban still a potent threat, American generals and civilian officials acknowledge that they have all but written off what was once one of the cornerstones of their strategy to end the war here: battering the Taliban into a peace deal.
The once ambitious American plans for ending the war are now being replaced by the far more modest goal of setting the stage for the Afghans to work out a deal among themselves in the years after most Western forces depart, and to ensure Pakistan is on board with any eventual settlement. Military and diplomatic officials here and in Washington said that despite attempts to engage directly with Taliban leaders this year, they now expect that any significant progress will come only after 2014, once the bulk of NATO troops have left.
“I don’t see it happening in the next couple years,” said a senior coalition officer. He and a number of other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the effort to open talks.
“It’s a very resilient enemy, and I’m not going to tell you it’s not,” the officer said. “It will be a constant battle, and it will be for years.”
The failure to broker meaningful talks with the Taliban underscores the fragility of the gains claimed during the surge of American troops ordered by President Obama in 2009. The 30,000 extra troops won back territory held by the Taliban, but by nearly all estimates failed to deal a crippling blow.
Critics of the Obama administration say the United States also weakened its own hand by agreeing to the 2014 deadline for its own involvement in combat operations, voluntarily ceding the prize the Taliban has been seeking for over a decade. The Obama administration defends the deadline as crucial to persuading the Afghan government and military to assume full responsibility for the country, and politically necessary for Americans weary of what has already become the country’s longest war.
Among America’s commanding generals here, from Stanley A. McChrystal and David H. Petraeus to today’s John R. Allen, it has been an oft-repeated mantra that the United States is not going to kill its way out of Afghanistan. They said that the Afghanistan war, like most insurgencies, could only end with a negotiation.
Now American officials say they have reduced their goals further — to patiently laying the groundwork for eventual peace talks after they leave. American officials say they hope that the Taliban will find the Afghan Army a more formidable adversary than they expect and be compelled, in the years after NATO withdraws, to come to terms with what they now dismiss as a “puppet” government.
The United States has not given up on talks before that time. It agreed last month to set up a committee with Pakistan that would vet potential new Taliban interlocutors, and the Obama administration is considering whether to revive a proposed prisoner swap with the insurgents that would, officials hope, reopen preliminary discussions that collapsed in March, current and former American officials said. Those are both seen as long-term efforts, however.
With the end of this year’s fighting season, the Taliban have weathered the biggest push the American-led coalition is going to make against them. A third of all American forces left by this month, and more of the 68,000 remaining may leave next year, with the goal that only a residual force of trainers and special operations troops will remain by the end of 2014.
Bringing Pakistan into the search for Taliban contacts is also an uncertain strategy, American officials said. The details of the new vetting committee have yet to be worked out, and “if we are depending on Pakistan, it comes with an asterisk,” one of the officials said. “We never know whether they will see it through.”
The American shift toward a more peripheral role in peace efforts represents another retreat from Washington’s once broad designs for Afghanistan, where the surge, along with a sharp escalation of nighttime raids by Special Operations Forces against Taliban field commanders, were partly aimed at forcing the Taliban into negotiations, making a Western withdrawal more feasible.
For a brief moment, the strategy appeared to be working: preliminary talks, painstakingly set up throughout 2011, opened early this year in Qatar, in the Persian Gulf.
The effort fell apart when the Obama administration, faced with bipartisan opposition in Washington, could not make good on a proposed prisoner swap, in which five Taliban leaders held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, would have been exchanged for the sole American soldier held by the insurgents, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
The trade was to be an initial confidence-building measure that would lead to more serious talks. If it is revived by the Obama administration, it would come after the presidential election, most likely leaving too little time to reach a deal before 2014, some current and former American officials said.
In Washington, “the tone of the whole discussion has shifted to a less U.S.-led approach and toward a more Afghan-led approach, but one that will be over a longer term,” said Shamila N. Chaudhary, a South Asia analyst at the Eurasia Group who served as the director for Pakistan and Afghanistan at the National Security Council.
The Americans still hope to play a behind-the-scenes role, she said, but what shape that would take is “not clear.”
“It’s too far in the future,” Ms. Chaudhary added.
Divisions between the Taliban’s political wing and its military commanders represent another obstacle to serious talks. When the discussions first became public, “the military wing of the Taliban was very critical,” said Syed Muhammad Akbar Agha, a former Taliban military commander who lives in Kabul.
They were angry to have learned of the talks through President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who was the first official to speak of them publicly. The Taliban have long derided Mr. Karzai as an American puppet, and they have steadfastly refused to talk with his government.
Then the Americans failed to make good on the prisoner swap, leaving the negotiators feeling betrayed, said Mr. Agha, who has played a tangential role in separate Afghan government efforts to open talks.
The senior coalition officer said the insurgents who supported the Qatar process “didn’t do a good I.O. campaign to sell it to their people.” I.O. is military jargon for Information Operations.
When the Karzai government brought it out into the open and the hard-liners balked, “we got they were backpedaling hard,” the officer said. Mr. Agha was adamant that talks were dead. “Peace is not a subject any longer,” he said.
But the Qataris remain willing to host the talks, and one of the Taliban negotiators still in Qatar said the talks could restart if the prisoner swap took place and the insurgents were allowed to open an office in Qatar, as the Americans had agreed to allow.
If those two steps “are implemented and practical steps are taken by the United States of America, talks will resume. There is no other obstruction,” said Sohail Shaheen, the Taliban negotiator, in an interview last month with Japan’s NHK World TV.
The prospects for direct negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban are even murkier.
Mualavi Qalanmudin, a former Taliban minister who now sits on the High Peace Council, the Karzai administration’s separate peace effort, dismissed the notion that the Taliban will never talk to the Afghan government.
“They will continue saying that until the day they sit at the negotiating table,” said Mr. Qalanmudin, who once ran the Taliban’s notorious Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.
Mr. Agha, however, said he had been asked by the High Peace Council to carry proposals for direct talks to the Taliban and was rebuffed. “They said, ‘Reconcile with this corrupt government? Reconcile with this?’ I had no answer.”
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington, and Sangar Rahimi from Kabul.
5 ways to help fix Afghanistan
CNN By Ahmad Majidyar, Special to CNN October 1st, 2012
Ahmad Majidyar is a senior research associate at the American Enterprise Institute. The views expressed are his own.
The U.S. mission in Afghanistan has suffered serious setbacks recently. The Taliban’s audacious September 14 attack on a major coalition base in Helmand Province suggested that the security gains in the south remain fragile and reversible, and that the insurgents are trying to make a comeback as foreign troops are withdrawing. Moreover, the alarming rise in insider attacks forced the U.S. and its allies to restrict joint operations with Afghan troops. These developments should alarm Washington as they undermine the security transition to the Afghan lead and the U.S. exit strategy. But on really placating war weary voters, both presidential candidates remain silent on America’s longest war. Mitt Romney made no mention of Afghanistan in his nomination speech, while President Obama only talks about his exit plan.
Yet there is much at stake in Afghanistan. A precipitous U.S. disengagement would allow the Taliban and al-Qaeda to reconstitute in southern and eastern provinces and plot against America and its allies. The United States can succeed in Afghanistan, but it needs to pursue a strategy that focuses more on success than just the endgame and withdrawal. There are five things the next president should do to sustain the gains of the past decade and ensure that Afghanistan will not become a safe haven for global terrorism once again:
Avoid a precipitous withdrawal: The surge of 33,000 troops has now ended, with mixed results. The reinforcements expelled the insurgents from their strongholds in the south; allowed the Kabul government to expand its writ in the strategic provinces of Kandahar and Helmand; and strengthened the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). Conversely, the arbitrary withdrawal timelines attached to the surge emboldened the insurgents and gave them an incentive to continue fighting rather than seeking a political settlement. The deadlines also weakened the coalition as other allies followed suit: the Netherlands and Canada have already pulled out troops; France will exit by this year’s end; and Britain is also mulling a quicker withdrawal than previously planned. Moreover, the troop drawdown did not allow the military to replicate the same success in eastern Afghanistan, home to the al-Qaeda-linked Haqqani Network. It is, therefore, imperative that the next administration avoid further reductions to the 68,000 remaining troops precipitously. This will help the coalition to sustain gains in the south and weaken the Haqqanis in the east. In addition, Washington needs to keep a residual force of several thousands in Afghanistan beyond 2014 to continue assisting the ANSF, and to keep a check on al-Qaeda and its affiliates along the Afghan-Pakistani border. A significant U.S. military presence will also send a strong message to friends and enemies in the region that the United States is not abandoning Afghanistan.
Support Afghan security forces beyond 2014: Since the establishment of the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan (NTMA) in November 2009, the ANSF has developed from 190,000 poorly trained and inadequately equipped personnel into a more effective counterinsurgency force of 350,000 soldiers and policemen. The ANSF is now reportedly leading more than 80 percent of military operations, and will assume security responsibility for 75 percent of the country’s population by year’s end. Despite these achievements, however, the ANSF remains reliant on the coalition for support roles, such as intelligence, surveillance, logistics, and air power. It is essential that the United States and its allies continue support for the ANSF prior to and after 2014, and commit to providing the estimated $6 billion required to sustain the 350,000 ANSF personnel. The White House’s plan to cut the ANSF number to 230,000 due to budgetary restrictions is a mistake. The reduction of 120,000 personnel will not allow the ANSF to fill the vacuum created by the departing foreign troops, and a sizable number of those laid off might join the insurgency or resort to other criminal activity.
Get tough with Pakistan: Ostensibly a U.S. ally, Pakistan has been supporting insurgents fighting in Afghanistan over the past decade. The Haqqani Network and the Mullah Omar-led Quetta Shura Taliban operate with impunity from Pakistan. So far, Washington has done little to dismantle these safe havens or force Pakistan to take action against them. The CIA-led drone strikes have largely targeted al-Qaeda leaders. This needs to change. Washington must present Islamabad with a clear choice: dismantle the Afghan Taliban safe havens in exchange for increased U.S. aid, or face serious consequences. Barring a Pakistani action, the U.S. needs to go after the sanctuaries unilaterally, by increasing drone strikes and conducting Special Forces operations. Blacklisting pro-militant elements within Pakistan’s army and intelligence must also be on the table. These measures would not come without costs, and the Pakistani military might take retaliatory actions, such as closing down NATO’s supply routes. But the cost of inaction will be much higher.
Hold off peace talks with the Taliban: Several years of diplomacy with the Taliban have produced no results. Now that foreign troops are withdrawing, the Taliban has little incentive to accept a political settlement. The insurgents’ policy is to wait out the foreign forces and attempt to topple the Kabul government after 2014. The assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the head of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, was a clear indication the Taliban had no inclination for peace. Moreover, ethnic minority leaders have begun rearming their militias as they fear President Karzai might reach a backstage deal with the Taliban to remain in power. This does not bode well for Afghanistan’s stability and risks a repeat of the 1990s civil war. It is possible to integrate large numbers of Taliban foot soldiers and field commanders by offering them financial and political incentives. But this is unlikely now as the insurgents have the upper hand in the conflict. The U.S. State Department’s long-overdue designation of the Haqqani Network as a terrorist organization was an encouraging step, but the U.S. and its allies need to take more aggressive diplomatic and military measures to weaken the Taliban ahead of the 2014 withdrawal.
Focus on political transition: The past 34 years of conflict in Afghanistan have shown that military efforts in the absence of a comprehensive political strategy cannot guarantee long-term stability. The pro-communist government in Kabul survived the Mujahedeen’s military offensives for three years after the 1989 Soviet withdrawal. But the growing political divide within the regime coupled with the 1991 suspension of aid from Moscow resulted in the regime’s collapse. At present, too, the state institutions are weak and the political system lacks broad-based legitimacy. Corruption and incompetence in the government are alienating the population and aiding the insurgency. Above all, concurrent with the foreign troops’ withdrawal in 2014, Afghanistan will face a daunting political challenge: the transfer of power from President Karzai to a new administration. Karzai is barred by the constitution to run for a third term. Suggestions that Washington should pick a replacement for Karzai are misguided. It should be left to the Afghans to elect their next leader. But the U.S. and its allies can help to ensure that the election happens in a fair, transparent and secure atmosphere. A repeat of the fraudulent 2009 election could destabilize Afghanistan – and set the stage for another civil war.
Afghanistan’s Insider War Against the U.S.: A Matter of No Trust
In order to protect themselves, Americans must now watch the Afghan soldiers they are training to take over the security of the country
TIME By John Wendle October 1, 2012
Combat Outpost Garda, Wardak Province - Saturday marked the 2,000th U.S. military death in the war in Afghanistan. And it is the way in which the American soldier was reportedly killed – by a presumptive Afghan ally – that makes it significant. These so-called green-on-blue attacks are rarely spectacular – often carried out suddenly, by rifle. Even so, these insider attacks are proving to be the perfect weapon against coalition forces since they accomplish many of the insurgents’ goals with little planning, effort or cost.
Increasingly, coalition troops feel they cannot trust the Afghan soldiers and police with whom they live and serve. The killings drive a wedge of mistrust deeper between foreign and Afghan forces and they also cause the American public to question why Washington is helping the Afghan government and military at all. And these doubts and questions are critical because, in order for the U.S. to declare any kind of victory after the 2014 withdrawal, it has to train and mentor a viable Afghan security force that will respect human rights and prevent a much-feared civil war or Taliban takeover.
The mistrust and tension was visible during a recent trip to Combat Outpost Garda, in northern Wardak Province. As a U.S. patrol wound its way back over barren, brown hills and through the sunny orchards of apples that make this valley famous among Afghans, word passed back through the soldiers that an Afghan National Army (ANA) patrol would be heading out as they headed in. One soldier joked that he hoped the Afghans would not shoot the patrol as they came in.Some laughed. Soon after, an American lieutenant’s voice crackled through the leaves of the trees from the communications devices carried by all troops, telling the patrol to keep a sharp eye as they returned. Not such a joke, after all.
The actual ability of Afghan troops to help—rather than hurt—coalition partners is risible. At a recent mentoring session in Garda, for example, Afghan soldiers came huffing through the loose gravel of the camp, practicing carrying wounded U.S. soldier across their backs. With little focus placed on training and strength, most of the Afghans were not strong enough to lift an American soldier loaded with body armor, helmet and weapon. Some collapsed into the dirt, laughing. Others dropped their loads with curses. Finally, helmets askew and out of breath, the ANA soldiers reached the shooting range. Hands shaking from the exertion, they peered through their iron sights and tried – sometimes successfully – to hit targets. “Sometimes pray and spray just ain’t enough,” says a U.S. sergeant. “Some of these guys [have such bad aim they] should be armed with rocket propelled grenades.”
While the ANA trained, an American soldier called a “guardian angel” stood in the background, watching over the rest of the U.S. troops with a round in the chamber while the Americans taught. When asked what his job was, another guardian angel, standing by as an Afghan contractor repaired a roof at Forward Operating Base Shank in nearby Logar Province, said, “If he starts acting up, I’m supposed to drop him.” Afghan troops did not seem to be aware of the change or that they were in anyone’s sights.
Just how seriously the U.S. is taking the insider attacks was demonstrated by NATO’s move in mid-September curtailing joint patrols between coalition and Afghan forces. Although Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said at a news conference late last week that, “I can now report to you that most ISAF units have returned to their normal partnered operations at all levels,” the new rules governing joint and offensive patrols – drastically reined in last week – remain in force.
The new security measures include having officers at the company and platoon level getting a two star general to sign off on a patrol; the submission of risk assessments; and patrols having to avoid checkpoints where they do not have a good relationship with the Afghans. These, however, have not halted the green on blue killings. The attack late Saturday that killed the 2,000th U.S. soldier took place in southern Wardak, at a checkpoint near an Afghan National Army base in the district of Sayedabad, according to Afghan officials, news agencies reported. NATO and the Afghan military are still investigating the incident. A NATO-contracted civilian was also killed.
Shahidullah Shahid, a provincial government spokesman, told the AP an Afghan soldier had turned his gun on Americans and started shooting. “Initial reports indicate that a misunderstanding happened between Afghan army soldiers and American soldiers,” he said. (On Monday, a Taliban suicide bomber in Khost reportedly killed three NATO troops along with at least 10 other people, including several civilians. While the U.S. may be marking its 2,000th combat fatality since 2001, more than 3,000 Afghan civilians were killed in2011 alone in violence perpetrated by combatants on both sides of the conflict.)
Compared to 35 insider killings for all of last year, at least 52 NATO troops – about half of them American – have been killed in 36 green on blue attacks this year, accounting for 15% of all coalition casualties, AFP reported. NATO says that about 25% of the attacks are carried out by Taliban infiltrators, while the rest are caused by cultural differences and disputes between NATO troops and Afghan forces.
“The signature attack that we’re beginning to see is going to be the insider attack,” U.S. and NATO commander General John Allen told CBS’s “60 Minutes” in an interview that aired Sunday. “I’m mad as hell about [insider killings], to be honest with you,” said Allen. “We’re willing to sacrifice a lot for this campaign, but we’re not willing to be murdered for it.”
Karzai Blames US for Fostering Corruption
TOLOnews.com By Sharif Amiry Monday, 01 October 2012
Afghan President Hamid Karzai blamed the United States for making the problem of corruption in Afghanistan worse, although he accepts the scandal within his government.
Speaking in an interview with CBS news Sunday, Karzai said the US practices in managing and awarding huge contracts to Afghan businesses had abetted the country's crippling graft.
Afghan political experts told TOLOnews Monday that Karzai's accusation was fair, but also stressed that the corruption at the presidential palace and high-ranking government officials was the real root of the problem.
"It is correct that there are issues with contracts, but the real problem is the presidential and government officials who are involved in corruption without any prosecution," Afghan Civil Society Activist Mir Ahmad Joyenda said.
This comes as the Afghan government has pledged to the international to fight corruption in an effective and serious manner in order the receive the financial aid pledged by international donors of $16 billion over the next four years.
In an effort to overcome and reduce the level of graft in the government, Karzai issued a reform decree which asked all the government entities to provide him with the necessary information to combat corruption.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com
October 2, 2012 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has spoken by telephone with Afghanistan's defense and interior ministers about preventing insider attacks on NATO and Afghan forces.
It was the first time Panetta had spoken to Afghan Defense Minister Bismillah Khan Mohammadi and Interior Minister Ghulam Mujtaba Patang since their appointments to the positions.
The call comes after a suicide bomber killed 14 people -- including three NATO soldiers and four police -- in a suicide bomb attack in eastern Afghanistan on October 1.
Provincial Governor Abdul Jabar Nahimi said the bomber had been riding a motorcycle packed with explosives and that 37 civilians were wounded in the blast in the city of Khost.
The Taliban has claimed responsibility.
Based on reporting by Reuters, AP, and AFP
Suspend the Afghan-Pakistan Strategic Agreement: Parliament
TOLOnews.com By Rafi Sediqi Monday, 01 October 2012
Afghan lawmakers on Monday said that the planned strategic agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan is meaningless and any work on it should be suspended until the country stops cross-border shelling into Afghanistan's eastern regions.
Several Afghan lawmakers including the speaker of the House Abdul Raouf Ibrahimi slammed discussions of a long-term deal between the two countries.
"Afghan people are the victims of violence and terrorism and Pakistan is the real cause of that," Ibrahim said. "The Afghan government should closely monitor the contents of the strategic agreement and consider the issue of Pakistan being a supporter and facilitator of insurgents in Afghanistan."
Ghazni MP Ali Akbar Qasimi said that he believes signing a deal with Pakistan is premature and should be delayed.
"Signing the strategic agreement with Pakistan is untimely because Pakistan is now shelling the eastern provinces," Qasimi said.
"It should be delayed until it changes its strategy and position against Afghanistan."
Kunar MP Saleh Mohammad Saleh called the agreement meaningless given just days ago Pakistani military were warning residents in up to 15 districts of the eastern provinces to leave their homes or be caught up in their incursion.
MPs also claimed that Pakistan had clearly violated the United Nations Security Council 1373 (2001) Resolution which says all nations must prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, as well as criminalise the willful provision or collection of funds for such acts, and to not allow their territory to be used as the terrorism fundraising efforts.
"Pakistan is violating the 1373 (2001) United Nations Security Council Resolution which prohibits the funding of terrorist networks and obliges nations to take strong action against such networks. The United Nations should prevent Pakistan's continued shelling on Afghanistan's eastern provinces and impose sanctions against them," Kabul MP Baktash Siawash said.
The signing of an Afghanistan-Pakistan strategic pact by the end of 2013 was decided upon by the presidents of both countries in their meeting in the US last week.
Afghan militancy gets thrust with 30 people killed in 2 days
by Abdul Haleem, Chen Xin
KABUL, Oct. 2 (Xinhua) -- Militancy in the conflict-ridden Afghanistan has got new momentum as 30 people including 11 Taliban militants and three soldiers with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force have been killed over the past two days.
In the latest incident that has claimed the lives of anti- government militants was the explosion of ammunition in Taliban former stronghold Kandahar late Monday night which left 11 Taliban fighters dead, Kandahar provincial administration confirmed in a statement released here Tuesday.
"A powerful blast took place in a weapon and ammunition cache of Taliban outfit killing 11 militants on the spot which occurred in Kanjoso area of Spin Boldak district bordering Pakistan late Monday night," the statement added.
Two Taliban commanders are among those killed in the deadly blast, the statement emphasized.
However, Taliban militants fighting the government are yet to make comment.
A previous security incident, which happened in the shape of suicide bombing and rattled the eastern Khost province early Monday, claimed the lives of 16 people, mostly civilians, and injured scores others.
"In the coward terror attack which took place at 08:30 a.m. local time Monday, the suicide bomber blew him up in the provincial capital Khost city, killing 16 people including 10 innocent civilians and injuring 61 others including three police," a statement of the Khost provincial government sent to media outlets asserted.
Six policemen including Mubarak Shah, commander of the Rapid Reaction Force, are among those killed in the bloody suicide bombing, the statement confirmed.
Three NATO soldiers were also killed in the blast, the alliance confirmed in a statement released here.
Zabihullah Mujahid who claims to speak for the Taliban outfit in talks with media via telephone from unknown location claimed responsibility for the deadly attack, saying a Taliban fighter named Shoaib Kunduzi had carried out the suicide bombing that killed several Afghans and foreign soldiers including six Americans and an interpreter.
Often the non-combatants have been bearing the brunt of endemic conflict in Afghanistan.
A total of 1,145 Afghan civilians were killed and 1,954 injured in conflicts and violent security mishaps in the first six months this year in insurgency-hit Afghanistan, 15 percent down in overall civilian casualties from a year earlier, according to a United Nations report released in Kabul on Aug. 8.
The UN report, however, attributed 80 percent of the civilian deaths to the attacks committed by Taliban insurgents and other armed groups opposing the Afghan government. Another 10 percent of the deaths were attributed to Afghan and NATO-led forces and the remaining 10 percent were unattributed.
Self-Described 'Redneck' Takes On Kabul Art Scene
By Frud Bezhan October 2, 2012 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
"I'm an Afghan by blood and a redneck by the grace of God," Aman Mojadidi says in introducing himself. "I'm an atheist and a radically politicized artist."
Nine years ago, the Afghan-born American performance artist returned from Florida to his native Kabul. In that time the 41-year-old has made a name for himself as a leading provocateur within the Afghan capital's emerging art scene.
Through various art forms, including film, photography, and public installation projects, Mojadidi has waged a relentless campaign against what he sees as the excesses of the Afghan government and political stagnation in the war-torn country he was forced to flee as a child.
Mojadidi's chief targets have been corruption, which he says permeates all levels of society, and the monopolization of political power by the country's former warlords and militia leaders.
"The rampant corruption manifests itself here in a way that it affects everyone, not just the higher levels of politics. I also think [a problem] is the political control in the hands of jihadist leaders," Mojadidi says.
"I don't think the country will be able to really move forward as a nation until political power ceases to be in the hands of those who rest all their authority on the fact that they did jihad against the Soviet Union," he adds. "They are keeping the country stagnated in that period."
'Jihadi Gangster'
That criticism has been evident in several prominent projects.
In "Payback," a video installation released in 2009, Mojadidi impersonated a police officer and set up a fake police checkpoint in Kabul. But instead of asking for a bribe, he offered money to baffled motorists and apologized on behalf of the Kabul police department for any bribes they may have paid in the past.
Mojadidi took things a step further when, during the country's parliamentary elections in 2010, he secretly plastered fake campaign posters of himself on streets across Kabul. The posters, which show Mojadidi in a black turban with a gold-plated pistol hanging around his neck, read: "Vote for me! I've done jihad -- and I'm rich."
Met with rave reviews, Mojadidi's work has gained global exposure through exhibits from the United States and Europe to Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
Speaking Truth To Power
Some, predictably, take offense to pictures depicting him as a warlord sitting beside his golden wooden leg, trying to watch television while a scantily-clad, burqa-wearing woman tries to get his attention.
By the same token, photos of him sitting in a barber shop adorned in a Confederate flag, swilling Budweiser beer, might rub some in the religiously conservative country the wrong way.
But while Mojadidi has occasionally come into conflict with the Afghan authorities, he has never been formally charged. And he has answers for his critics.
Working in Afghanistan has been "schizophrenic," Mojadidi says. He insists that although the country is a "junkman's paradise" in terms of artistic practice, the development of the Afghan art scene is being held back by religious radicals and powerful politicians keen on stifling criticism.
"There are these religious and political constrictions on what can be exhibited and what can be shown publicly," he says. "If it's critical of the religion of Islam or critical of some of these power-holders, then one runs the risk of being at the least censored and at the most potentially imprisoned or facing some sort of charges."
His artwork has also strained his family ties. Mojadidi admits that he now has a "love-hate relationship" with his uncle, Sibghatullah Mojadidi, a powerful former mujahedin and onetime interim Afghan president who now heads the opposition National Liberation Front political party.
"He doesn't necessarily agree with my lifestyle or the way I carry my life forward or the choices that I make," Mojadidi says. "In general, we tend to get along quite well but I don't in the end know whether he fully understands the scope of some of the work that I'm doing."
Giving Something Back
Mojadidi says the Afghan art scene is still developing, and suffers from a lack of galleries, museums, and exhibitions. He says many art projects in the country are driven by foreign cultural centers and organizations, rather than by Afghan artists themselves.
Truly indigenous art might only take root when foreign funding phases out and Afghan artists are forced to make do with what little is available to them, he says.
"The art scene here is still very nascent," Mojadidi says. "It's still very much driven by the development system that's been in place here for the last decade. There is a foreign cultural center or a foreign NGO that's interested in doing a project as opposed to really being something that has taken root [in Afghanistan]."
After exhibiting his work in Kassel, Germany, for the past three months, Mojadidi is heading to Paris, where his new short film will be screened from October 8 at the Palais de Tokyo, one of Europe's largest centers for contemporary art.
The film, titled "Memories Lay in Ruin amidst a Garden on Earth While Birds & Planes Battle for the Sky," is a conceptual perspective on the notion of a lost Garden of Eden.
"The film shows the remaining wall of an Angur Khana, where grapes were hung to dry into raisins by my family. The compound this wall is a part of was the old Mojadidi fort just outside Kabul, where my family lived," Mojadidi says.
"It was a fully self-sufficient community with orchards, livestock, a bakery, and farm with crops. A sort of 'Eden' that was later destroyed by the Soviets after their invasion and the family's joining of the armed resistance movement against them."
Despite a busy schedule that will see him visit India in the next several months, the dusty streets of Kabul are never far away from Mojadidi's thoughts.
What drives him to labor every day in the hostile conditions in Afghanistan, he says, is the same reason he moved back to the country in the first place.
"What moved me here has a lot to do with doing something to contribute to Afghanistan and to do something to help Afghanistan in some way," Mojadidi says. "There's also a desire to get to know my cultural heritage and try and connect more with that heritage."
Afghanistan's Security Ministers Visit Border of Pakistan
TOLOnews.com By Sonil Haidari, Miriwais Sahil Monday, 01 October 2012
Afghanistan's top security officials in the government visited eastern Nangarhar province Monday to investigate the increasing claims of unrest along the border with Pakistan.
Minister of Defense Gen. Bismillah Mohammadi and Minister of Interior Mujtaba Patang were in Nangarhar's Ghoshta district Monday morning to discuss with residents about the ongoing shelling of Afghan territory from Pakistan's side of the border.
Mohammadi told reporters accompanying his visit that the aim of the trip was to assess and solve it diplomatically.
"We don't want to start a war," he said Monday. "We are discussing the problems with the residents and we want to resolve it in a diplomatic way."
He reiterated that they are also working on the Pakistani government to put an end to any shelling into Afghanistan.
"We will ask Pakistan to stop the shelling and we are also following up the problem with the United Nation's [Security Council] to pressure Pakistan over the shelling in Afghanistan territory," he said.
The visit comes four days after the Pakistan military allegedly warned the residents of Ghoshta and Lalpoor districts to leave the area or risk being targeted.
Meanwhile, Patang repeated his statement in Parliament last week that the Afghan border police will be reinforced.
"We will equip and increase the number of border police in the bordering districts. Our forces can defend their territory," the Interior Minister said.
Both the Ghoshta and Lalpoor districts share their eastern border with Pakistan and have seen an increase in missile attacks from the east over the past year. Ghostha is normally a more peaceful district in the province.
Nangarhar provincial governor Gul Agha Shirzoi warned Pakistan that if the shelling continues, Afghanistan will soon retaliate.
"If Pakistan again starts shelling, we will respond with similar attacks by the Afghan army," he said Monday.
According to reports, hundreds of families in Lalpoor district and other eastern provinces such as Kunar have fled their homes due to the ongoing threats.
Last week, Afghan President Hamid Karzai talked about the challenges facing the Afghan and Pakistan governments in his address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York
"We are deeply committed to our brotherly relations with Pakistan, but are aware of the challenges that may strain our efforts at building trust and confidence," Karzai said.
"Such incidents as the recent shelling of Afghan villages risk undermining the efforts by both governments to work together in the interest of our common security."
Paul Ryan attacks Afghanistan drawdown: ‘They’re still fighting’
Washington Post By Felicia Sonmez October 1, 2012
GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan had some sharp criticism for President Obama on Afghanistan Monday morning, telling conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that the president put political considerations before national security with his decision to draw down tens of thousands of “surge” troops during the height of the fighting season.
“They just pulled about 22,000 troops in September — which to me is a political decision to have a drawdown before an election — but we’re still giving our soldiers the same mission, the same counter-insurgency mission,” Ryan told Ingraham.
He added: “They’re still fighting. We pulled out 22,000 while our people are being shot at and we’re sending fewer people out to do the same job, which makes them less safe. That politicization of these decisions is something we would never do. We would never put politics ahead of what our commanders say is necessary to do the job and keep our soldiers as safe as possible when they’re prosecuting this war.”
The argument is one that the GOP ticket has made before, but Ryan’s interview Monday represented some of his harshest criticism of Obama on the issue to date.
The drawdown is in keeping with Obama’s timetable to pull out all conventional combat forces by the end of 2014, a withdrawal date Romney and Ryan both support.
U.S. Abandoning Hopes for Taliban Peace Deal
New York Times By MATTHEW ROSENBERG and ROD NORDLAND October 1, 2012
KABUL, Afghanistan - With the surge of American troops over and the Taliban still a potent threat, American generals and civilian officials acknowledge that they have all but written off what was once one of the cornerstones of their strategy to end the war here: battering the Taliban into a peace deal.
The once ambitious American plans for ending the war are now being replaced by the far more modest goal of setting the stage for the Afghans to work out a deal among themselves in the years after most Western forces depart, and to ensure Pakistan is on board with any eventual settlement. Military and diplomatic officials here and in Washington said that despite attempts to engage directly with Taliban leaders this year, they now expect that any significant progress will come only after 2014, once the bulk of NATO troops have left.
“I don’t see it happening in the next couple years,” said a senior coalition officer. He and a number of other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the effort to open talks.
“It’s a very resilient enemy, and I’m not going to tell you it’s not,” the officer said. “It will be a constant battle, and it will be for years.”
The failure to broker meaningful talks with the Taliban underscores the fragility of the gains claimed during the surge of American troops ordered by President Obama in 2009. The 30,000 extra troops won back territory held by the Taliban, but by nearly all estimates failed to deal a crippling blow.
Critics of the Obama administration say the United States also weakened its own hand by agreeing to the 2014 deadline for its own involvement in combat operations, voluntarily ceding the prize the Taliban has been seeking for over a decade. The Obama administration defends the deadline as crucial to persuading the Afghan government and military to assume full responsibility for the country, and politically necessary for Americans weary of what has already become the country’s longest war.
Among America’s commanding generals here, from Stanley A. McChrystal and David H. Petraeus to today’s John R. Allen, it has been an oft-repeated mantra that the United States is not going to kill its way out of Afghanistan. They said that the Afghanistan war, like most insurgencies, could only end with a negotiation.
Now American officials say they have reduced their goals further — to patiently laying the groundwork for eventual peace talks after they leave. American officials say they hope that the Taliban will find the Afghan Army a more formidable adversary than they expect and be compelled, in the years after NATO withdraws, to come to terms with what they now dismiss as a “puppet” government.
The United States has not given up on talks before that time. It agreed last month to set up a committee with Pakistan that would vet potential new Taliban interlocutors, and the Obama administration is considering whether to revive a proposed prisoner swap with the insurgents that would, officials hope, reopen preliminary discussions that collapsed in March, current and former American officials said. Those are both seen as long-term efforts, however.
With the end of this year’s fighting season, the Taliban have weathered the biggest push the American-led coalition is going to make against them. A third of all American forces left by this month, and more of the 68,000 remaining may leave next year, with the goal that only a residual force of trainers and special operations troops will remain by the end of 2014.
Bringing Pakistan into the search for Taliban contacts is also an uncertain strategy, American officials said. The details of the new vetting committee have yet to be worked out, and “if we are depending on Pakistan, it comes with an asterisk,” one of the officials said. “We never know whether they will see it through.”
The American shift toward a more peripheral role in peace efforts represents another retreat from Washington’s once broad designs for Afghanistan, where the surge, along with a sharp escalation of nighttime raids by Special Operations Forces against Taliban field commanders, were partly aimed at forcing the Taliban into negotiations, making a Western withdrawal more feasible.
For a brief moment, the strategy appeared to be working: preliminary talks, painstakingly set up throughout 2011, opened early this year in Qatar, in the Persian Gulf.
The effort fell apart when the Obama administration, faced with bipartisan opposition in Washington, could not make good on a proposed prisoner swap, in which five Taliban leaders held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, would have been exchanged for the sole American soldier held by the insurgents, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
The trade was to be an initial confidence-building measure that would lead to more serious talks. If it is revived by the Obama administration, it would come after the presidential election, most likely leaving too little time to reach a deal before 2014, some current and former American officials said.
In Washington, “the tone of the whole discussion has shifted to a less U.S.-led approach and toward a more Afghan-led approach, but one that will be over a longer term,” said Shamila N. Chaudhary, a South Asia analyst at the Eurasia Group who served as the director for Pakistan and Afghanistan at the National Security Council.
The Americans still hope to play a behind-the-scenes role, she said, but what shape that would take is “not clear.”
“It’s too far in the future,” Ms. Chaudhary added.
Divisions between the Taliban’s political wing and its military commanders represent another obstacle to serious talks. When the discussions first became public, “the military wing of the Taliban was very critical,” said Syed Muhammad Akbar Agha, a former Taliban military commander who lives in Kabul.
They were angry to have learned of the talks through President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who was the first official to speak of them publicly. The Taliban have long derided Mr. Karzai as an American puppet, and they have steadfastly refused to talk with his government.
Then the Americans failed to make good on the prisoner swap, leaving the negotiators feeling betrayed, said Mr. Agha, who has played a tangential role in separate Afghan government efforts to open talks.
The senior coalition officer said the insurgents who supported the Qatar process “didn’t do a good I.O. campaign to sell it to their people.” I.O. is military jargon for Information Operations.
When the Karzai government brought it out into the open and the hard-liners balked, “we got they were backpedaling hard,” the officer said. Mr. Agha was adamant that talks were dead. “Peace is not a subject any longer,” he said.
But the Qataris remain willing to host the talks, and one of the Taliban negotiators still in Qatar said the talks could restart if the prisoner swap took place and the insurgents were allowed to open an office in Qatar, as the Americans had agreed to allow.
If those two steps “are implemented and practical steps are taken by the United States of America, talks will resume. There is no other obstruction,” said Sohail Shaheen, the Taliban negotiator, in an interview last month with Japan’s NHK World TV.
The prospects for direct negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban are even murkier.
Mualavi Qalanmudin, a former Taliban minister who now sits on the High Peace Council, the Karzai administration’s separate peace effort, dismissed the notion that the Taliban will never talk to the Afghan government.
“They will continue saying that until the day they sit at the negotiating table,” said Mr. Qalanmudin, who once ran the Taliban’s notorious Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.
Mr. Agha, however, said he had been asked by the High Peace Council to carry proposals for direct talks to the Taliban and was rebuffed. “They said, ‘Reconcile with this corrupt government? Reconcile with this?’ I had no answer.”
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington, and Sangar Rahimi from Kabul.
5 ways to help fix Afghanistan
CNN By Ahmad Majidyar, Special to CNN October 1st, 2012
Ahmad Majidyar is a senior research associate at the American Enterprise Institute. The views expressed are his own.
The U.S. mission in Afghanistan has suffered serious setbacks recently. The Taliban’s audacious September 14 attack on a major coalition base in Helmand Province suggested that the security gains in the south remain fragile and reversible, and that the insurgents are trying to make a comeback as foreign troops are withdrawing. Moreover, the alarming rise in insider attacks forced the U.S. and its allies to restrict joint operations with Afghan troops. These developments should alarm Washington as they undermine the security transition to the Afghan lead and the U.S. exit strategy. But on really placating war weary voters, both presidential candidates remain silent on America’s longest war. Mitt Romney made no mention of Afghanistan in his nomination speech, while President Obama only talks about his exit plan.
Yet there is much at stake in Afghanistan. A precipitous U.S. disengagement would allow the Taliban and al-Qaeda to reconstitute in southern and eastern provinces and plot against America and its allies. The United States can succeed in Afghanistan, but it needs to pursue a strategy that focuses more on success than just the endgame and withdrawal. There are five things the next president should do to sustain the gains of the past decade and ensure that Afghanistan will not become a safe haven for global terrorism once again:
Avoid a precipitous withdrawal: The surge of 33,000 troops has now ended, with mixed results. The reinforcements expelled the insurgents from their strongholds in the south; allowed the Kabul government to expand its writ in the strategic provinces of Kandahar and Helmand; and strengthened the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). Conversely, the arbitrary withdrawal timelines attached to the surge emboldened the insurgents and gave them an incentive to continue fighting rather than seeking a political settlement. The deadlines also weakened the coalition as other allies followed suit: the Netherlands and Canada have already pulled out troops; France will exit by this year’s end; and Britain is also mulling a quicker withdrawal than previously planned. Moreover, the troop drawdown did not allow the military to replicate the same success in eastern Afghanistan, home to the al-Qaeda-linked Haqqani Network. It is, therefore, imperative that the next administration avoid further reductions to the 68,000 remaining troops precipitously. This will help the coalition to sustain gains in the south and weaken the Haqqanis in the east. In addition, Washington needs to keep a residual force of several thousands in Afghanistan beyond 2014 to continue assisting the ANSF, and to keep a check on al-Qaeda and its affiliates along the Afghan-Pakistani border. A significant U.S. military presence will also send a strong message to friends and enemies in the region that the United States is not abandoning Afghanistan.
Support Afghan security forces beyond 2014: Since the establishment of the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan (NTMA) in November 2009, the ANSF has developed from 190,000 poorly trained and inadequately equipped personnel into a more effective counterinsurgency force of 350,000 soldiers and policemen. The ANSF is now reportedly leading more than 80 percent of military operations, and will assume security responsibility for 75 percent of the country’s population by year’s end. Despite these achievements, however, the ANSF remains reliant on the coalition for support roles, such as intelligence, surveillance, logistics, and air power. It is essential that the United States and its allies continue support for the ANSF prior to and after 2014, and commit to providing the estimated $6 billion required to sustain the 350,000 ANSF personnel. The White House’s plan to cut the ANSF number to 230,000 due to budgetary restrictions is a mistake. The reduction of 120,000 personnel will not allow the ANSF to fill the vacuum created by the departing foreign troops, and a sizable number of those laid off might join the insurgency or resort to other criminal activity.
Get tough with Pakistan: Ostensibly a U.S. ally, Pakistan has been supporting insurgents fighting in Afghanistan over the past decade. The Haqqani Network and the Mullah Omar-led Quetta Shura Taliban operate with impunity from Pakistan. So far, Washington has done little to dismantle these safe havens or force Pakistan to take action against them. The CIA-led drone strikes have largely targeted al-Qaeda leaders. This needs to change. Washington must present Islamabad with a clear choice: dismantle the Afghan Taliban safe havens in exchange for increased U.S. aid, or face serious consequences. Barring a Pakistani action, the U.S. needs to go after the sanctuaries unilaterally, by increasing drone strikes and conducting Special Forces operations. Blacklisting pro-militant elements within Pakistan’s army and intelligence must also be on the table. These measures would not come without costs, and the Pakistani military might take retaliatory actions, such as closing down NATO’s supply routes. But the cost of inaction will be much higher.
Hold off peace talks with the Taliban: Several years of diplomacy with the Taliban have produced no results. Now that foreign troops are withdrawing, the Taliban has little incentive to accept a political settlement. The insurgents’ policy is to wait out the foreign forces and attempt to topple the Kabul government after 2014. The assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the head of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, was a clear indication the Taliban had no inclination for peace. Moreover, ethnic minority leaders have begun rearming their militias as they fear President Karzai might reach a backstage deal with the Taliban to remain in power. This does not bode well for Afghanistan’s stability and risks a repeat of the 1990s civil war. It is possible to integrate large numbers of Taliban foot soldiers and field commanders by offering them financial and political incentives. But this is unlikely now as the insurgents have the upper hand in the conflict. The U.S. State Department’s long-overdue designation of the Haqqani Network as a terrorist organization was an encouraging step, but the U.S. and its allies need to take more aggressive diplomatic and military measures to weaken the Taliban ahead of the 2014 withdrawal.
Focus on political transition: The past 34 years of conflict in Afghanistan have shown that military efforts in the absence of a comprehensive political strategy cannot guarantee long-term stability. The pro-communist government in Kabul survived the Mujahedeen’s military offensives for three years after the 1989 Soviet withdrawal. But the growing political divide within the regime coupled with the 1991 suspension of aid from Moscow resulted in the regime’s collapse. At present, too, the state institutions are weak and the political system lacks broad-based legitimacy. Corruption and incompetence in the government are alienating the population and aiding the insurgency. Above all, concurrent with the foreign troops’ withdrawal in 2014, Afghanistan will face a daunting political challenge: the transfer of power from President Karzai to a new administration. Karzai is barred by the constitution to run for a third term. Suggestions that Washington should pick a replacement for Karzai are misguided. It should be left to the Afghans to elect their next leader. But the U.S. and its allies can help to ensure that the election happens in a fair, transparent and secure atmosphere. A repeat of the fraudulent 2009 election could destabilize Afghanistan – and set the stage for another civil war.
Afghanistan’s Insider War Against the U.S.: A Matter of No Trust
In order to protect themselves, Americans must now watch the Afghan soldiers they are training to take over the security of the country
TIME By John Wendle October 1, 2012
Combat Outpost Garda, Wardak Province - Saturday marked the 2,000th U.S. military death in the war in Afghanistan. And it is the way in which the American soldier was reportedly killed – by a presumptive Afghan ally – that makes it significant. These so-called green-on-blue attacks are rarely spectacular – often carried out suddenly, by rifle. Even so, these insider attacks are proving to be the perfect weapon against coalition forces since they accomplish many of the insurgents’ goals with little planning, effort or cost.
Increasingly, coalition troops feel they cannot trust the Afghan soldiers and police with whom they live and serve. The killings drive a wedge of mistrust deeper between foreign and Afghan forces and they also cause the American public to question why Washington is helping the Afghan government and military at all. And these doubts and questions are critical because, in order for the U.S. to declare any kind of victory after the 2014 withdrawal, it has to train and mentor a viable Afghan security force that will respect human rights and prevent a much-feared civil war or Taliban takeover.
The mistrust and tension was visible during a recent trip to Combat Outpost Garda, in northern Wardak Province. As a U.S. patrol wound its way back over barren, brown hills and through the sunny orchards of apples that make this valley famous among Afghans, word passed back through the soldiers that an Afghan National Army (ANA) patrol would be heading out as they headed in. One soldier joked that he hoped the Afghans would not shoot the patrol as they came in.Some laughed. Soon after, an American lieutenant’s voice crackled through the leaves of the trees from the communications devices carried by all troops, telling the patrol to keep a sharp eye as they returned. Not such a joke, after all.
The actual ability of Afghan troops to help—rather than hurt—coalition partners is risible. At a recent mentoring session in Garda, for example, Afghan soldiers came huffing through the loose gravel of the camp, practicing carrying wounded U.S. soldier across their backs. With little focus placed on training and strength, most of the Afghans were not strong enough to lift an American soldier loaded with body armor, helmet and weapon. Some collapsed into the dirt, laughing. Others dropped their loads with curses. Finally, helmets askew and out of breath, the ANA soldiers reached the shooting range. Hands shaking from the exertion, they peered through their iron sights and tried – sometimes successfully – to hit targets. “Sometimes pray and spray just ain’t enough,” says a U.S. sergeant. “Some of these guys [have such bad aim they] should be armed with rocket propelled grenades.”
While the ANA trained, an American soldier called a “guardian angel” stood in the background, watching over the rest of the U.S. troops with a round in the chamber while the Americans taught. When asked what his job was, another guardian angel, standing by as an Afghan contractor repaired a roof at Forward Operating Base Shank in nearby Logar Province, said, “If he starts acting up, I’m supposed to drop him.” Afghan troops did not seem to be aware of the change or that they were in anyone’s sights.
Just how seriously the U.S. is taking the insider attacks was demonstrated by NATO’s move in mid-September curtailing joint patrols between coalition and Afghan forces. Although Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said at a news conference late last week that, “I can now report to you that most ISAF units have returned to their normal partnered operations at all levels,” the new rules governing joint and offensive patrols – drastically reined in last week – remain in force.
The new security measures include having officers at the company and platoon level getting a two star general to sign off on a patrol; the submission of risk assessments; and patrols having to avoid checkpoints where they do not have a good relationship with the Afghans. These, however, have not halted the green on blue killings. The attack late Saturday that killed the 2,000th U.S. soldier took place in southern Wardak, at a checkpoint near an Afghan National Army base in the district of Sayedabad, according to Afghan officials, news agencies reported. NATO and the Afghan military are still investigating the incident. A NATO-contracted civilian was also killed.
Shahidullah Shahid, a provincial government spokesman, told the AP an Afghan soldier had turned his gun on Americans and started shooting. “Initial reports indicate that a misunderstanding happened between Afghan army soldiers and American soldiers,” he said. (On Monday, a Taliban suicide bomber in Khost reportedly killed three NATO troops along with at least 10 other people, including several civilians. While the U.S. may be marking its 2,000th combat fatality since 2001, more than 3,000 Afghan civilians were killed in2011 alone in violence perpetrated by combatants on both sides of the conflict.)
Compared to 35 insider killings for all of last year, at least 52 NATO troops – about half of them American – have been killed in 36 green on blue attacks this year, accounting for 15% of all coalition casualties, AFP reported. NATO says that about 25% of the attacks are carried out by Taliban infiltrators, while the rest are caused by cultural differences and disputes between NATO troops and Afghan forces.
“The signature attack that we’re beginning to see is going to be the insider attack,” U.S. and NATO commander General John Allen told CBS’s “60 Minutes” in an interview that aired Sunday. “I’m mad as hell about [insider killings], to be honest with you,” said Allen. “We’re willing to sacrifice a lot for this campaign, but we’re not willing to be murdered for it.”
Karzai Blames US for Fostering Corruption
TOLOnews.com By Sharif Amiry Monday, 01 October 2012
Afghan President Hamid Karzai blamed the United States for making the problem of corruption in Afghanistan worse, although he accepts the scandal within his government.
Speaking in an interview with CBS news Sunday, Karzai said the US practices in managing and awarding huge contracts to Afghan businesses had abetted the country's crippling graft.
Afghan political experts told TOLOnews Monday that Karzai's accusation was fair, but also stressed that the corruption at the presidential palace and high-ranking government officials was the real root of the problem.
"It is correct that there are issues with contracts, but the real problem is the presidential and government officials who are involved in corruption without any prosecution," Afghan Civil Society Activist Mir Ahmad Joyenda said.
This comes as the Afghan government has pledged to the international to fight corruption in an effective and serious manner in order the receive the financial aid pledged by international donors of $16 billion over the next four years.
In an effort to overcome and reduce the level of graft in the government, Karzai issued a reform decree which asked all the government entities to provide him with the necessary information to combat corruption.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com