Tweet
Key actors in Afghan peace process say it's a no-go
While the US has pledged to work toward a negotiated settlement with insurgents, some insiders say the US is pulling back from that.
Christian Science Monitor By Tom A. Peter, Correspondent October 2, 2012
Kabul, Afghanistan - Despite a number of setbacks in Afghanistan, including a spate of insider killings, the US has reaffirmed its commitment to working toward a negotiated peace settlement in Afghanistan.
State Department officials say they continue to push for Afghan-led talks and reconciliation, taking steps to pave the way for potential negotiations.
“And through all of this, we continue to be clear that we remain open to talks,” said a US State Department official who is not authorized to speak to the media. “At this point, it is up to the Taliban to fulfill its obligations.”
But many Afghans involved in the process say they’ve seen a marked reduction in the international community’s interest level in talks that have so far seen insubstantial progress.
“Maybe they’re thinking that their efforts are not going to have any positive effects, and they’re thinking that there can only be a change in the peace efforts after 2014,” says Maulavi Shahzada Shahid, a member of the High Peace Council who says he senses a pullback.
The 2010 Peace Jirga, where Afghan leaders from throughout the country came together to discuss how to bring an end to the conflict through talks with the insurgency, made the peace process a central aspect to finding a solution to the Afghan conflict. On the heels of that jirga President Hamid Karzai created the High Peace Council to continue as a special outreach group, and supported the formation of a number of internationally funded reconciliation and reintegration programs.
Despite the emphasis on various peace efforts, the programs have yielded limited results. Shortly after the 2010 jirga, a man pretending to be a high-level Taliban figure cause international embarrassment when he convinced NATO to meet with him. Then Sept. 2011, the Taliban assassinated Burhanuddin Rabbani, the head of the High Peace Council. And finally this spring, the Taliban temporarily suspended negotiations over frustrations related to US officials’ hesitancy to engage in a prisoner exchange.
Following the signing in May of the Afghan-US strategic agreement, which paved the way to keep a US presence here until at least 2024, many Taliban members said that the group lost interest in peace talks.
“The signing of the strategic agreement with America harmed the peace talks between the US and the Taliban a lot because after that the Taliban knew that America wants to be in Afghanistan for a long time,” says Akbar Agha, a former senior member of the Taliban. “Even from the beginning, the foreigners didn’t want to have peace talks.”
Some insiders say that US officials have long been prepared for the eventuality that talks may not yield fruitful results.
“My understanding is that the US administration has for the past year and a half believed that a political deal including the Taliban would be helpful in stabilizing Afghanistan,” says Michael Semple, a Harvard University fellow who has served as an informal mediator in the peace talks. “They have never bet everything on this, and the fallback was always to proceed with ‘transition’ sans deal.”
Airstrike kills Taliban commander in S. Afghanistan
LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan, Oct. 3 (Xinhua)-- A Taliban commander named Mullah Sadeq was killed as NATO-led forces' aircraft pounded militants' hideout in Nad Ali district of Helmand province, 555 km south of capital Kabul on Tuesday, spokesman of provincial administration Ahmad Zirak said Wednesday.
"Mullah Sadeq known as Mullah Abid who served as Taliban shadowy governor in Nad Ali district and organized roadside bombings against Afghan and NATO-led troops was killed by NATO-led aircrafts' attack yesterday," Zirak told Xinhua.
Taliban militants fighting the government and NATO-led troops have yet to make comment.
Latest Afghan attack: A troubling first?
CNN By Barbara Starr October 2nd, 2012
A deadly assault on American forces in eastern Afghanistan over the weekend stokes fears of a disturbing new form of "insider attack" - an assault on coalition forces by an Afghan military unit rather than a lone attacker.
U.S. forces apparently took fire on Saturday from several Afghan troops shooting at them from several directions, according to a U.S. military official familiar with initial results of the investigation.
NATO and Afghan officials investigating the Wardak province assault are expected to make their findings public soon, maybe as early as Wednesday, the official said.
The official declined to be identified because the findings have not yet been made public.
The Wardak assault comes amid as concern reached crisis proportions over so-called "insider" or "green on blue" attacks. They are the names for strikes by Afghans soldiers or police - or militants wearing their uniforms - on U.S. and allied forces.
If the initial suspicions about Saturday's attack are borne out, it would be the first time U.S. troops have come under attack from an Afghan unit rather than lone attackers.
The Saturday incident apparently started when an Afghan soldier fired his weapon, suddenly killing the U.S. soldier and civilian contractor.
U.S. and Afghan troops had a "short conversation" before the firing began. The U.S. official said that the Afghan soldier was known to both the Americans and the Afghans; so, the initial firing is being classified as an insider attack.
American troops fired back killing the Afghan and a man standing next to him.
At that point, the U.S. troops report they came under fire from multiple persons and multiple directions.
NATO has said it has reports that some of the firing was possibly conducted by nearby insurgents. The U.S. official said it strongly appears Afghan forces also fired on the Americans from multiple points.
The initial conclusion from NATO and Afghan officials is that U.S. forces may indeed have also come under insurgent fire at the same time.
But, there are still strong indications multiple Afghan troops fired on the Americans. At this point, it's not been made public how much of the fire was deliberate, or if there was some battlefield confusion during the event.
While NATO forces want to put the findings out as soon as the investigation is done, it still could run into problems. One reason could be that because this is a joint investigation with the Afghans, the government of President Hamid Karzai must agree to findings which could paint Afghan forces in a poor light.
NATO is already aware this incident is garnering widespread attention in military circles, because of the potential that multiple Afghan troops attacked the Americans. "We know there is a lot of interest," the official said. He emphasized the incident involved a lot of confusion, but NATO believes it will be able to determine what happened.
Insider attacks have been on the rise for months. The senior combat leader in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, told CBS' "60 Minutes" Sunday night that he is "mad as hell" about them.
"We're willing to sacrifice a lot for this campaign, but we're not willing to be murdered for it," he said.
The attacks have occurred during a crucial period in the Afghan war - the training of a fledgling Afghan army. Coalition forces hope to get Afghan security forces ready to take charge of security after NATO-led troops withdraw from Afghanistan at the end of 2014.
Measures have been devised to curb and thwart the insider attacks.
Soldiers are required to have a loaded weapon within reach at all times.
The military is improving its vetting of new recruits and working to address cross-cultural issues that lead to tensions. Training ended for hundreds of Afghan soldiers while their backgrounds are checked further for insurgent links.
NATO's International Security Assistance Force said a regional commander now must give the OK for a joint U.S.-Afghan action, a move that has limited operations. Some troops have been assigned to be "guardian angels," soldiers in units who keep an eye on the Afghan forces.
The military attributes some of the attacks to Taliban infiltration and also to cross-cultural misunderstandings that escalated into violence.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently called the insider attack problem in Afghanistan "a last-gasp effort to be able to not only target our forces, but to try to create chaos, because they've been unable to regain any of the territory that they have lost."
One of Washington's top military analysts pushed back at the "last gasp" remark.
"Quite frankly, I think that most intelligent people and military people would privately think that Secretary Panetta's comments are absurd, perhaps harmful. Because they just can't be taken seriously," said Anthony Cordesman, a senior analyst at CSIS, a major Washington think tank, and a recipient of Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award for his work at the Pentagon before joining CSIS.
"They are not at the last gasp, all they really have to do is - at this point - out-wait us, constantly put pressure on areas that give them political visibility. They don't have to defeat ISAF, it's leaving."
On "60 Minutes," Gen. Allen said the insider attacks have emerged because the "enemy" has seized on a "vulnerability."
"In Iraq, the signature weapon system that we hadn't seen before was the IED," Allen said, referring to improvised explosive devices "We had to adjust to that. Here, I think the signature attack that we're beginning to see is going to be the insider attack."
CNN's Larry Shaughnessy and Joe Sterling contributed to this report
New Zealand defence minister discusses military withdrawal with Afghanistan authorities
WELLINGTON, Oct. 3 (Xinhua) -- New Zealand Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman revealed Wednesday that he had been in Afghanistan in recent days to discuss the withdrawal of New Zealand troops from the country by April next year.
Coleman visited the New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Bamyan Province and held talks with officials in Bamyan and Kabul.
"The visit was an opportunity to offer support to the PRT for the important work it has been performing in providing security to the province," Coleman said in a statement.
"I was also able to discuss New Zealand's departure from Bamyan with the provincial governor and local security chiefs and to assess the work that needs to be done between now and April to ensure that the gains of the past decade are sustained in the long term," he said.
"New Zealand's decade in Bamyan will have made a massive difference in quality of life to the people there."
Coleman visited New Zealand development projects in Bamyan, including those in solar energy, agriculture, education and health.
He also spent a day in Kabul where he met with Afghanistan's newly appointed Defence Minister, Bismillah Khan Mohammadi, and held talks with senior International Security Assistance Force ( ISAF) commanders.
Last month, the New Zealand government confirmed it would withdraw the bulk of its armed forces from Afghanistan after 10 years by the end of April next year.
The withdrawal, which would follow the expected completion of transition of security responsibility to local Bamyan forces at the beginning of October, had been endorsed by ISAF and been signaled well in advance to partners, said the government.
New Zealand was likely to continue to contribute a small number of NZDF (New Zealand Defence Force) trainers to the Afghanistan National Army Officer Training Academy later in 2013 and maintain a presence in ISAF headquarters.
The government had previously said the withdrawal would take place in 2014 before changing the timetable to late next year and finally confirming April as the deadline.
In August, five members of the PRT were killed in two separate attacks in Bamyan.
Nato Training to Continue Beyond 2014 Despite Insider Attacks
TOLOnews.com By Shakila Abrahim khail Tuesday, 02 October 2012
Nato's chief said Monday that partner countries were still committed to training Afghan forces beyond 2014 in spite of growing concerns over the increase of "insider attacks" on Nato forces.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen has acknowledged that the deadly attacks of Afghan security troops on the Nato-led soldiers have harmed relations with their foreign mentors, but said in the monthly briefing in Brussels that six Nato partner countries have shown readiness to be part of the Afghan forces training mission after 2014.
"Six countries, six partners have so far announced that they are prepared to contribute to a training mission after 2014," Rasmussen said.
He did not provide figures on how many Nato military personnel will remain deployed nor the budget of the future mission. This is expected to be discussed in a meeting of Nato Defense Ministers in Brussels on October 9 and 10.
Rasmussen said at the briefing that Nato had resumed full partnered operations with the Afghan forces after a hiatus from some joint operations last month following the spike in insider attacks during August.
"I have taken note of the fact that it has now been decided to resume such joint operations, and partners, almost all partnered activities have been resumed and that reflects an assessment made by our commanders as regards the overall security situation," Rasmussen said.
His comments were made the same day UK newspaper The Guardian published an interview with him where he stressed the impact of the insider attacks.
"There's no doubt insider attacks have undermined trust and confidence, absolutely," he told The Guardian.
Afghan Defense Minister Bismillah Mohammadi on Tuesday said in a Kabul press briefing that the government was cooperating with ways to prevent such attacks.
"We are working on a joint mechanism [to stop the insider attacks] and hope this solves the issue," he said in Kabul. "These attacks have concerned both us and the world. As the enemy has lost its fighting moral, they are trying to infiltrate within the Afghan security ranks. But we will resist them."
US Defense Minister Leon Pannetta called Mohammadi Monday for the first time since his appointment as Minister last month and discussed the insider attacks, among other things.
US network CBS news aired an interview with top US and Nato commander in Afghanistan Gen. John Allen on Sunday where he described the attacks as the "signature" of the US-led Afghan war, saying he was "mad as hell" about them.
"We're willing to sacrifice a lot for this campaign. But we're not willing to be murdered for it," Allen told CBS.
Busan Film Festival To Screen Six Classic Afghan Movies
October 3, 2012 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
South Korea's Busan International Film Festival plans to screen six classic Afghan movies once hidden in a wall to save them from the Taliban.
The movies, made from the 1960s to the 1980s, include the 1965 film "Like Eagles."
The films were hidden in Kabul when the Taliban regime took power in the 1990s and banned most forms of entertainment, including movies.
The films resurfaced in 2004 after the Taliban regime was ousted.
The South Korean festival also plans to screen a North Korean film for the first time in nearly a decade. It is a romantic comedy by director Kim Gwang Hun called "Comrade Kim Goes Flying."
The festival begins on October 4 and continues through October 13.
Afghanistan should be left 'to get on with things' – British ambassador
Sir Richard Stagg suggests process of withdrawal could be accelerated, and says Taliban are ready to talk
The Guardian By Nick Hopkins Tuesday 2 October 2012
The international community has been hand-holding Afghanistan for long enough and Kabul should now be left to get on with running the country without the west's constant interference, the British ambassador in Kabul has said.
In an interview with the Guardian, Sir Richard Stagg said it was also clear that the Taliban had grown tired of camping across the border in Pakistan and had accepted they needed to be involved in peace and reconciliation talks over the next two years if they were to have any hope of sharing power.
The Foreign Office does not believe the complex obstacles to negotiations are insurmountable, which will give further encouragement to the voices in Whitehall pushing for an acceleration of the British military and civilian withdrawal.Stagg acknowledged that the debate about withdrawal was ongoing and hinted that he believed a faster drawdown was not only possible, but preferable:
"The question is: how fast do you hand over? It's not a gulf of difference. It is a spectrum and it depends on your judgment on the progress we are making. And on the security side we are making good progress.
"The more the people of Afghanistan see their own government stand on its own two feet, the better for everybody. This is not a matter of us cutting and running and disappearing, it is a matter of shifting the nature of our engagement from hand-holding to one which is offering support as needed and required."
He added: "We need to allow [the Afghans] to get on with things more. The international community has been a bit omnipresent in the last decade and we need to move to a different business model in which we are there to provide help and guidance but not there to try to take decisions for them."
The ambassador's remarks chime with those of Nato's secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who said on Monday that the retreat of western forces from Afghanistan could come sooner than expected. "If the security situation allows, I would not exclude the possibility that in certain areas you could accelerate the process," Rasmussen said.
Much will depend on a report from Nato's overall commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, which will be finished within weeks, and the result of the forthcoming US presidential election.
The White House is not expected to make any big decisions on Afghanistan until after polling day on 6 November. If Mitt Romney wins, Nato commanders expect further delays as a new administration gets to grips with the issues. A former ambassador to India, Stagg took over from Sir William Patey in April this year. He said he had been encouraged by the capability of Afghan security forces, but added that one of his aims was to help underpin faith in the country's political system before the presidential elections in 2014.
Stagg warned there is a danger that western countries expect too much from Afghanistan: "We need to be sensible in our ambition. I think wWe should be careful not to expect Afghanistan, which started off from a far, far worse place than its neighbours, to leap-frog to a far more orderly or better-run society than the rest of the region.
"We should help to lay a foundation so that the principles of how the society might evolve are there. The challenge is to have a process by 2014 that is orderly and transparent, and that it leads to a peaceful transition to a new government. Challenge is not a codeword for impossibility. There are still 18 months to go."
Stagg said the Taliban could see a new political infrastructure being created in Kabul, and had begun to realise that if it wanted to shape Afghanistan's future, it needed to be involved now, and not after the election, when it will be too late.
"There is going to be a process of work over the next two years to shape the future Afghan political environment, and I think the Taliban can see that it would be to their disadvantage not to be part of that process. The Taliban have been in exile for over a decade. They would very much like to be back in their own country. And they have now discovered that the Afghan army is an effective force.
"The sense of being able to take charge of the country I think they realise this is now totally unrealistic. So if you are thinking that the only way forward is the potential to share power, then talking is a sensible way of achieving that outcome. We are seeing more and more signs that the Taliban are moving towards that understanding."
Nato is working towards pulling out all of its combat forces by the end of 2014, although it has not set out a timetable for withdrawal. Earlier this year, Nato military commanders had argued they needed as many troops there as possible for as long as possible, but that view has changed in recent months. The number of so-called "green on blue" attacks, where Afghan soldiers have shot colleagues in Nato's International Security and Assistance Force, has increased sharply this year.
With more than 50 troops killed, including five Britons, trust between the forces has been strained and calls for a substantial withdrawal of forces in 2013 have increased.
Afghanistan-Pakistan Border Tensions Flare Amid Bombardment Claims
Sharon Behn VOA News October 2, 2012
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN — Afghan forces say they are ready to retaliate against Pakistan for cross-border shelling along the country's northeastern border. Analysts in both countries are extremely concerned about what the situation means for the future of the region.
Afghanistan Defense Minister General Bismillah Mohammadi said that if diplomacy fails to stop Pakistan’s alleged shelling of Afghan soil, his forces are ready to react accordingly.
“Afghan forces,” he said, “are ready to sacrifice their lives and properties to defend their homeland,” said Mohammadi.
Trouble at Durand Line
The general was speaking to a gathering of elders in the border district of Goshta. According to local officials, Afghan residents were being asked by Pakistani border forces to leave their homes along the disputed border known as the Durand Line.
Mohammadi’s statements were echoed by Afghan Interior Minister Mujtaba Patang and taken one step further by the Nangarhar province's Governor Gul Agha Sherzai.
“We have decided by ourselves: if someone fires on us, we will return fire,” said Sherzai.
Pakistan has denied it is shelling Afghanistan. Islamabad has said Pakistani military forces have launched several offensives inside its border against militants, however, who then have escaped into Afghanistan.
The Durand Line border, established in 1893 by India’s then-colonial ruler Britain, is one of many contentious issues between Islamabad and Kabul.
Simmering disagreement
Afghan military expert and former deputy interior minister General Abdul Hadi Khalid said that as long as international forces are in Afghanistan, he doubts the border dispute will erupt into a conflict.
“If Afghan forces, especially border forces, react against the attacks, I think it does not mean the two countries fall into military conflict. But at least it is a response to the interference of Pakistan,” said Khalid.
Once the coalition combat forces leave, Khalid said, Islamabad would likely continue its support of Afghan insurgents, but would change its tactics. Both U.S. and Afghan officials say militants who attack international forces inside Afghanistan take refuge in Pakistan.
Flip sides of coin
Pakistani analyst and retired Brigadier General Mehmood Shah countered that militants attacking and killing Pakistani soldiers and civilians are given a safe haven in Afghanistan. Shah denied accusations of intentional cross-border shelling.
“It is all propaganda,” he said.
Afghanistan raised the issue of cross-border shelling at the United Nations Security council last week, saying the attacks have killed dozens of Afghans, mostly civilians.
Problems in recovery of Kabul Bank loans: Delawari
Pajhwok By Weda Baraki 02/10/2012
KABUL - The central bank said on Monday that $135 million of the loans issued by the New Kabul Bank had been recovered, but the sale of properties purchased abroad with the debts remained a challenge.
Addressing a news conference in Kabul, Da Afghanistan bank governor said they had recovered $180 million of the $980 million loans. The recovery includes $45 million interest that was viewed off by President Hamid Karzai.
Noorullah Delawari said some organisations, which had received loans worth $398 million from the bank, had promised to return them soon. He put problematic loans, involving assets in foreign countries, at $401 million.
"Since there are problems in recovery, in cooperation with the Attorney General Office (AGO), we are sending individual default cases to judicial organs,” the governor added. He promised the defaulters would not be named until court verdicts were handed down.
One audit official identified the sale of defaulters’ off-shore assets as the stumbling block to resolution of the ailing bank’s problems. Abdul Hamid Mohibi said: "Selling the high-price properties bought with Kabul Bank loans inside and outside the country is a huge difficulty for us..."
"Properties in Dubai were purchased at high prices, but their rates have considerably declined over the past two years," he said, hinting a similar problem with regard to the sale of properties inside the countries.
Some elements were hindering the sale of the bank’s assets at the Hairatan Dry Port in northern Balkh province, he explained. A high-powered delegation had reached an agreement on the sale with Afghan traders, who later backed out of their decision.
Afghanistan: We're Out of Reasons
The Huffington Post By Joseph Blady, M.D. Former program officer for the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and senior analyst for the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence 02/10/2012
In reporting about a Taliban attack against Camp Bastion in southern Afghanistan last Friday, The New York Times pointed out that the eight U.S. Marine Harrier jets destroyed in the attack were worth about $200 million. America's real loss is harder to quantify, as is so much in this war, but it's always more than we realize.
While Harriers cost about $23 million a copy when they were first purchased 10 or 20 years ago, they can no longer be replaced by anything that doesn't cost many times that amount. The cost of the two Marines killed in the attack can't be calculated at all. What is also beyond calculation is why, after 11 years of war and assurances by our top government and military leaders that things are improving in Afghanistan, the Taliban can stage such an attack against a fortified British/U.S. base.
There are numerous reasons: The Taliban are ever better at asymmetric warfare; we can't tell friend from enemy; the country has been and would be difficult for any army to control, etc. The reasons stop to matter. They are simply there, and they are compelling enough to make anyone who thinks we should spend another minute in that country have to provide a cogent explanation for that position.
Then, there's the really tough stuff. One problem is the mounting number of "green-on-blue" attacks, the shooting of our people by Afghans we are supposed to be training. Everyone clucks over this horrifying phenomenon, and members of Congress who support the war want to know what we're going to do to offer more protection for our troops. If we continue our present policy based on training the Afghans to take over their own security, there is nothing we can do to improve security! Every Coalition soldier has become an individual target. How does one propose that we protect tens of thousands of individual targets? In a conventional war, troops stay behind the heavily patrolled wire and screen anyone who approaches. But when the troops need to get among the population for any purpose, they cannot be guaranteed safety. U.S. spokesmen have talked about an "angel" approach, where one soldier observes his mates training Afghan counterparts and watches for trouble. Who watches the "angel" to make sure he's not shot?
Is this where we've come after 11 years?
Just as important is the internal rot that affects the Afghan government, led by its malignant president, Hamid Karzai. Karzai never misses an opportunity to denigrate us to the rest of the world, and to explain to his people what we're doing wrong, all the while sucking up every nickel we're stupid enough to give him. Good governance was one of the five pillars of our initial strategy in Afghanistan, going back to the invasion in 2001. Unfortunately, the Taliban murdered the best candidate for Afghan leadership, Ahmad Shah Massoud, two days before 9/11, and we were left with Karzai to work with us.
The tenacity with which we have backed Karzai defies understanding. Those who are well versed about Afghanistan know that Karzai's family was involved in the drug trade. Karzai has consistently shoveled money and contracts to cronies, and has done little to help the Coalition build a functional Afghan infrastructure. Most recently, he criticized the United States over our reluctance to turn over detainees, which is based, among other reasons, on consistent Afghan failure to properly manage detainee incarceration. This has resulted in repeated jailbreaks and premature paroles.
There are also our own consistent failings. Experts at places like the World Bank will tell you that there is nothing tougher than nation building, and there is no more challenging place to try than Afghanistan, with its difficult terrain and almost ubiquitous illiteracy. This means that there is little margin for error, but the scope of the job has defied proper oversight because real talent in this area comes at a premium, and is always in short supply. We let contracts to locals who do shoddy, unsupervised work; we get fleeced by our own contractors; and we struggle with the inconsistent efforts of our Coalition partners. There has never been enough money or coherent planning to do the job, which was probably impossible in the first place. The most important fact we managed to forget was that nothing was possible without true security, and, eleven years later, it is still lacking.
Some might argue that keeping Afghanistan free of al-Qaeda will keep America safer. They are failing to see the simplest truth about terrorism: that it is never going away, and that it sets up business anywhere that governance is weak. (Witnesses the ever-widening scope of our drone targeting.) In any event, we repeatedly forget the most basic rule of counterinsurgency. As long as the Taliban have a safe haven in Pakistan, we're not going to be rid of them.
Others state that the critical mistake was that the administration revealed our departure date. How many years were we in Afghanistan before that, where it made absolutely no difference? The only thing wrong with the departure date is that it is so far in the future. No one who supports the war can give a clear picture of what Afghanistan might look like in three to five years if we stayed, but I suspect we know anyway. "In for a penny, in for a pound" is no way to formulate a foreign policy.
Senators Slam Plans for Afghanistan-Pakistan Deal
TOLOnews.com By Shahla Murtazaie Tuesday, 02 October 2012
Afghan senators on Tuesday joined the country's lawmakers in condemning plans for an Afghanistan-Pakistan strategic agreement saying it will not be of any benefit to the country.
The senators noted the ongoing cross-border shelling from Pakistan into Afghanistan's eastern provinces to show that Pakistan was not ready to help bring peace and stability to Afghanistan.
"How can I sign the agreement with them if they are not ready to help in bringing peace to Afghanistan? Pakistan is the real cause of misery in Afghanistan," Senator Shahnaz Ghausi said.
Other senators including Gulalai Akbari called the agreement meaningless and said it will not have any benefit for Afghanistan.
"I am not in agreement and I do not want to sign an agreement which is meaningless and does not benefit Afghanistan. I don't want to sign it with a blind eye," Akbari said.
Other senators claimed that Pakistan had never stood by its promises towards Afghanistan and that there was no guarantee it will implement such a deal.
"I haven't seen anything practical from Pakistan which considers friendship and neighbourly behaviour. I don't how the Afghan government can be interested in having an agreement with them," Senator Sayed Farukh Shah Jenab said.
Afghan lawmakers on Monday said that the planned strategic agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan was meaningless and any work on it should be suspended until Pakistan stops shelling Afghanistan's east.
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."
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.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com
While the US has pledged to work toward a negotiated settlement with insurgents, some insiders say the US is pulling back from that.
Christian Science Monitor By Tom A. Peter, Correspondent October 2, 2012
Kabul, Afghanistan - Despite a number of setbacks in Afghanistan, including a spate of insider killings, the US has reaffirmed its commitment to working toward a negotiated peace settlement in Afghanistan.
State Department officials say they continue to push for Afghan-led talks and reconciliation, taking steps to pave the way for potential negotiations.
“And through all of this, we continue to be clear that we remain open to talks,” said a US State Department official who is not authorized to speak to the media. “At this point, it is up to the Taliban to fulfill its obligations.”
But many Afghans involved in the process say they’ve seen a marked reduction in the international community’s interest level in talks that have so far seen insubstantial progress.
“Maybe they’re thinking that their efforts are not going to have any positive effects, and they’re thinking that there can only be a change in the peace efforts after 2014,” says Maulavi Shahzada Shahid, a member of the High Peace Council who says he senses a pullback.
The 2010 Peace Jirga, where Afghan leaders from throughout the country came together to discuss how to bring an end to the conflict through talks with the insurgency, made the peace process a central aspect to finding a solution to the Afghan conflict. On the heels of that jirga President Hamid Karzai created the High Peace Council to continue as a special outreach group, and supported the formation of a number of internationally funded reconciliation and reintegration programs.
Despite the emphasis on various peace efforts, the programs have yielded limited results. Shortly after the 2010 jirga, a man pretending to be a high-level Taliban figure cause international embarrassment when he convinced NATO to meet with him. Then Sept. 2011, the Taliban assassinated Burhanuddin Rabbani, the head of the High Peace Council. And finally this spring, the Taliban temporarily suspended negotiations over frustrations related to US officials’ hesitancy to engage in a prisoner exchange.
Following the signing in May of the Afghan-US strategic agreement, which paved the way to keep a US presence here until at least 2024, many Taliban members said that the group lost interest in peace talks.
“The signing of the strategic agreement with America harmed the peace talks between the US and the Taliban a lot because after that the Taliban knew that America wants to be in Afghanistan for a long time,” says Akbar Agha, a former senior member of the Taliban. “Even from the beginning, the foreigners didn’t want to have peace talks.”
Some insiders say that US officials have long been prepared for the eventuality that talks may not yield fruitful results.
“My understanding is that the US administration has for the past year and a half believed that a political deal including the Taliban would be helpful in stabilizing Afghanistan,” says Michael Semple, a Harvard University fellow who has served as an informal mediator in the peace talks. “They have never bet everything on this, and the fallback was always to proceed with ‘transition’ sans deal.”
Airstrike kills Taliban commander in S. Afghanistan
LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan, Oct. 3 (Xinhua)-- A Taliban commander named Mullah Sadeq was killed as NATO-led forces' aircraft pounded militants' hideout in Nad Ali district of Helmand province, 555 km south of capital Kabul on Tuesday, spokesman of provincial administration Ahmad Zirak said Wednesday.
"Mullah Sadeq known as Mullah Abid who served as Taliban shadowy governor in Nad Ali district and organized roadside bombings against Afghan and NATO-led troops was killed by NATO-led aircrafts' attack yesterday," Zirak told Xinhua.
Taliban militants fighting the government and NATO-led troops have yet to make comment.
Latest Afghan attack: A troubling first?
CNN By Barbara Starr October 2nd, 2012
A deadly assault on American forces in eastern Afghanistan over the weekend stokes fears of a disturbing new form of "insider attack" - an assault on coalition forces by an Afghan military unit rather than a lone attacker.
U.S. forces apparently took fire on Saturday from several Afghan troops shooting at them from several directions, according to a U.S. military official familiar with initial results of the investigation.
NATO and Afghan officials investigating the Wardak province assault are expected to make their findings public soon, maybe as early as Wednesday, the official said.
The official declined to be identified because the findings have not yet been made public.
The Wardak assault comes amid as concern reached crisis proportions over so-called "insider" or "green on blue" attacks. They are the names for strikes by Afghans soldiers or police - or militants wearing their uniforms - on U.S. and allied forces.
If the initial suspicions about Saturday's attack are borne out, it would be the first time U.S. troops have come under attack from an Afghan unit rather than lone attackers.
The Saturday incident apparently started when an Afghan soldier fired his weapon, suddenly killing the U.S. soldier and civilian contractor.
U.S. and Afghan troops had a "short conversation" before the firing began. The U.S. official said that the Afghan soldier was known to both the Americans and the Afghans; so, the initial firing is being classified as an insider attack.
American troops fired back killing the Afghan and a man standing next to him.
At that point, the U.S. troops report they came under fire from multiple persons and multiple directions.
NATO has said it has reports that some of the firing was possibly conducted by nearby insurgents. The U.S. official said it strongly appears Afghan forces also fired on the Americans from multiple points.
The initial conclusion from NATO and Afghan officials is that U.S. forces may indeed have also come under insurgent fire at the same time.
But, there are still strong indications multiple Afghan troops fired on the Americans. At this point, it's not been made public how much of the fire was deliberate, or if there was some battlefield confusion during the event.
While NATO forces want to put the findings out as soon as the investigation is done, it still could run into problems. One reason could be that because this is a joint investigation with the Afghans, the government of President Hamid Karzai must agree to findings which could paint Afghan forces in a poor light.
NATO is already aware this incident is garnering widespread attention in military circles, because of the potential that multiple Afghan troops attacked the Americans. "We know there is a lot of interest," the official said. He emphasized the incident involved a lot of confusion, but NATO believes it will be able to determine what happened.
Insider attacks have been on the rise for months. The senior combat leader in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, told CBS' "60 Minutes" Sunday night that he is "mad as hell" about them.
"We're willing to sacrifice a lot for this campaign, but we're not willing to be murdered for it," he said.
The attacks have occurred during a crucial period in the Afghan war - the training of a fledgling Afghan army. Coalition forces hope to get Afghan security forces ready to take charge of security after NATO-led troops withdraw from Afghanistan at the end of 2014.
Measures have been devised to curb and thwart the insider attacks.
Soldiers are required to have a loaded weapon within reach at all times.
The military is improving its vetting of new recruits and working to address cross-cultural issues that lead to tensions. Training ended for hundreds of Afghan soldiers while their backgrounds are checked further for insurgent links.
NATO's International Security Assistance Force said a regional commander now must give the OK for a joint U.S.-Afghan action, a move that has limited operations. Some troops have been assigned to be "guardian angels," soldiers in units who keep an eye on the Afghan forces.
The military attributes some of the attacks to Taliban infiltration and also to cross-cultural misunderstandings that escalated into violence.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently called the insider attack problem in Afghanistan "a last-gasp effort to be able to not only target our forces, but to try to create chaos, because they've been unable to regain any of the territory that they have lost."
One of Washington's top military analysts pushed back at the "last gasp" remark.
"Quite frankly, I think that most intelligent people and military people would privately think that Secretary Panetta's comments are absurd, perhaps harmful. Because they just can't be taken seriously," said Anthony Cordesman, a senior analyst at CSIS, a major Washington think tank, and a recipient of Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award for his work at the Pentagon before joining CSIS.
"They are not at the last gasp, all they really have to do is - at this point - out-wait us, constantly put pressure on areas that give them political visibility. They don't have to defeat ISAF, it's leaving."
On "60 Minutes," Gen. Allen said the insider attacks have emerged because the "enemy" has seized on a "vulnerability."
"In Iraq, the signature weapon system that we hadn't seen before was the IED," Allen said, referring to improvised explosive devices "We had to adjust to that. Here, I think the signature attack that we're beginning to see is going to be the insider attack."
CNN's Larry Shaughnessy and Joe Sterling contributed to this report
New Zealand defence minister discusses military withdrawal with Afghanistan authorities
WELLINGTON, Oct. 3 (Xinhua) -- New Zealand Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman revealed Wednesday that he had been in Afghanistan in recent days to discuss the withdrawal of New Zealand troops from the country by April next year.
Coleman visited the New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Bamyan Province and held talks with officials in Bamyan and Kabul.
"The visit was an opportunity to offer support to the PRT for the important work it has been performing in providing security to the province," Coleman said in a statement.
"I was also able to discuss New Zealand's departure from Bamyan with the provincial governor and local security chiefs and to assess the work that needs to be done between now and April to ensure that the gains of the past decade are sustained in the long term," he said.
"New Zealand's decade in Bamyan will have made a massive difference in quality of life to the people there."
Coleman visited New Zealand development projects in Bamyan, including those in solar energy, agriculture, education and health.
He also spent a day in Kabul where he met with Afghanistan's newly appointed Defence Minister, Bismillah Khan Mohammadi, and held talks with senior International Security Assistance Force ( ISAF) commanders.
Last month, the New Zealand government confirmed it would withdraw the bulk of its armed forces from Afghanistan after 10 years by the end of April next year.
The withdrawal, which would follow the expected completion of transition of security responsibility to local Bamyan forces at the beginning of October, had been endorsed by ISAF and been signaled well in advance to partners, said the government.
New Zealand was likely to continue to contribute a small number of NZDF (New Zealand Defence Force) trainers to the Afghanistan National Army Officer Training Academy later in 2013 and maintain a presence in ISAF headquarters.
The government had previously said the withdrawal would take place in 2014 before changing the timetable to late next year and finally confirming April as the deadline.
In August, five members of the PRT were killed in two separate attacks in Bamyan.
Nato Training to Continue Beyond 2014 Despite Insider Attacks
TOLOnews.com By Shakila Abrahim khail Tuesday, 02 October 2012
Nato's chief said Monday that partner countries were still committed to training Afghan forces beyond 2014 in spite of growing concerns over the increase of "insider attacks" on Nato forces.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen has acknowledged that the deadly attacks of Afghan security troops on the Nato-led soldiers have harmed relations with their foreign mentors, but said in the monthly briefing in Brussels that six Nato partner countries have shown readiness to be part of the Afghan forces training mission after 2014.
"Six countries, six partners have so far announced that they are prepared to contribute to a training mission after 2014," Rasmussen said.
He did not provide figures on how many Nato military personnel will remain deployed nor the budget of the future mission. This is expected to be discussed in a meeting of Nato Defense Ministers in Brussels on October 9 and 10.
Rasmussen said at the briefing that Nato had resumed full partnered operations with the Afghan forces after a hiatus from some joint operations last month following the spike in insider attacks during August.
"I have taken note of the fact that it has now been decided to resume such joint operations, and partners, almost all partnered activities have been resumed and that reflects an assessment made by our commanders as regards the overall security situation," Rasmussen said.
His comments were made the same day UK newspaper The Guardian published an interview with him where he stressed the impact of the insider attacks.
"There's no doubt insider attacks have undermined trust and confidence, absolutely," he told The Guardian.
Afghan Defense Minister Bismillah Mohammadi on Tuesday said in a Kabul press briefing that the government was cooperating with ways to prevent such attacks.
"We are working on a joint mechanism [to stop the insider attacks] and hope this solves the issue," he said in Kabul. "These attacks have concerned both us and the world. As the enemy has lost its fighting moral, they are trying to infiltrate within the Afghan security ranks. But we will resist them."
US Defense Minister Leon Pannetta called Mohammadi Monday for the first time since his appointment as Minister last month and discussed the insider attacks, among other things.
US network CBS news aired an interview with top US and Nato commander in Afghanistan Gen. John Allen on Sunday where he described the attacks as the "signature" of the US-led Afghan war, saying he was "mad as hell" about them.
"We're willing to sacrifice a lot for this campaign. But we're not willing to be murdered for it," Allen told CBS.
Busan Film Festival To Screen Six Classic Afghan Movies
October 3, 2012 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
South Korea's Busan International Film Festival plans to screen six classic Afghan movies once hidden in a wall to save them from the Taliban.
The movies, made from the 1960s to the 1980s, include the 1965 film "Like Eagles."
The films were hidden in Kabul when the Taliban regime took power in the 1990s and banned most forms of entertainment, including movies.
The films resurfaced in 2004 after the Taliban regime was ousted.
The South Korean festival also plans to screen a North Korean film for the first time in nearly a decade. It is a romantic comedy by director Kim Gwang Hun called "Comrade Kim Goes Flying."
The festival begins on October 4 and continues through October 13.
Afghanistan should be left 'to get on with things' – British ambassador
Sir Richard Stagg suggests process of withdrawal could be accelerated, and says Taliban are ready to talk
The Guardian By Nick Hopkins Tuesday 2 October 2012
The international community has been hand-holding Afghanistan for long enough and Kabul should now be left to get on with running the country without the west's constant interference, the British ambassador in Kabul has said.
In an interview with the Guardian, Sir Richard Stagg said it was also clear that the Taliban had grown tired of camping across the border in Pakistan and had accepted they needed to be involved in peace and reconciliation talks over the next two years if they were to have any hope of sharing power.
The Foreign Office does not believe the complex obstacles to negotiations are insurmountable, which will give further encouragement to the voices in Whitehall pushing for an acceleration of the British military and civilian withdrawal.Stagg acknowledged that the debate about withdrawal was ongoing and hinted that he believed a faster drawdown was not only possible, but preferable:
"The question is: how fast do you hand over? It's not a gulf of difference. It is a spectrum and it depends on your judgment on the progress we are making. And on the security side we are making good progress.
"The more the people of Afghanistan see their own government stand on its own two feet, the better for everybody. This is not a matter of us cutting and running and disappearing, it is a matter of shifting the nature of our engagement from hand-holding to one which is offering support as needed and required."
He added: "We need to allow [the Afghans] to get on with things more. The international community has been a bit omnipresent in the last decade and we need to move to a different business model in which we are there to provide help and guidance but not there to try to take decisions for them."
The ambassador's remarks chime with those of Nato's secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who said on Monday that the retreat of western forces from Afghanistan could come sooner than expected. "If the security situation allows, I would not exclude the possibility that in certain areas you could accelerate the process," Rasmussen said.
Much will depend on a report from Nato's overall commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, which will be finished within weeks, and the result of the forthcoming US presidential election.
The White House is not expected to make any big decisions on Afghanistan until after polling day on 6 November. If Mitt Romney wins, Nato commanders expect further delays as a new administration gets to grips with the issues. A former ambassador to India, Stagg took over from Sir William Patey in April this year. He said he had been encouraged by the capability of Afghan security forces, but added that one of his aims was to help underpin faith in the country's political system before the presidential elections in 2014.
Stagg warned there is a danger that western countries expect too much from Afghanistan: "We need to be sensible in our ambition. I think wWe should be careful not to expect Afghanistan, which started off from a far, far worse place than its neighbours, to leap-frog to a far more orderly or better-run society than the rest of the region.
"We should help to lay a foundation so that the principles of how the society might evolve are there. The challenge is to have a process by 2014 that is orderly and transparent, and that it leads to a peaceful transition to a new government. Challenge is not a codeword for impossibility. There are still 18 months to go."
Stagg said the Taliban could see a new political infrastructure being created in Kabul, and had begun to realise that if it wanted to shape Afghanistan's future, it needed to be involved now, and not after the election, when it will be too late.
"There is going to be a process of work over the next two years to shape the future Afghan political environment, and I think the Taliban can see that it would be to their disadvantage not to be part of that process. The Taliban have been in exile for over a decade. They would very much like to be back in their own country. And they have now discovered that the Afghan army is an effective force.
"The sense of being able to take charge of the country I think they realise this is now totally unrealistic. So if you are thinking that the only way forward is the potential to share power, then talking is a sensible way of achieving that outcome. We are seeing more and more signs that the Taliban are moving towards that understanding."
Nato is working towards pulling out all of its combat forces by the end of 2014, although it has not set out a timetable for withdrawal. Earlier this year, Nato military commanders had argued they needed as many troops there as possible for as long as possible, but that view has changed in recent months. The number of so-called "green on blue" attacks, where Afghan soldiers have shot colleagues in Nato's International Security and Assistance Force, has increased sharply this year.
With more than 50 troops killed, including five Britons, trust between the forces has been strained and calls for a substantial withdrawal of forces in 2013 have increased.
Afghanistan-Pakistan Border Tensions Flare Amid Bombardment Claims
Sharon Behn VOA News October 2, 2012
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN — Afghan forces say they are ready to retaliate against Pakistan for cross-border shelling along the country's northeastern border. Analysts in both countries are extremely concerned about what the situation means for the future of the region.
Afghanistan Defense Minister General Bismillah Mohammadi said that if diplomacy fails to stop Pakistan’s alleged shelling of Afghan soil, his forces are ready to react accordingly.
“Afghan forces,” he said, “are ready to sacrifice their lives and properties to defend their homeland,” said Mohammadi.
Trouble at Durand Line
The general was speaking to a gathering of elders in the border district of Goshta. According to local officials, Afghan residents were being asked by Pakistani border forces to leave their homes along the disputed border known as the Durand Line.
Mohammadi’s statements were echoed by Afghan Interior Minister Mujtaba Patang and taken one step further by the Nangarhar province's Governor Gul Agha Sherzai.
“We have decided by ourselves: if someone fires on us, we will return fire,” said Sherzai.
Pakistan has denied it is shelling Afghanistan. Islamabad has said Pakistani military forces have launched several offensives inside its border against militants, however, who then have escaped into Afghanistan.
The Durand Line border, established in 1893 by India’s then-colonial ruler Britain, is one of many contentious issues between Islamabad and Kabul.
Simmering disagreement
Afghan military expert and former deputy interior minister General Abdul Hadi Khalid said that as long as international forces are in Afghanistan, he doubts the border dispute will erupt into a conflict.
“If Afghan forces, especially border forces, react against the attacks, I think it does not mean the two countries fall into military conflict. But at least it is a response to the interference of Pakistan,” said Khalid.
Once the coalition combat forces leave, Khalid said, Islamabad would likely continue its support of Afghan insurgents, but would change its tactics. Both U.S. and Afghan officials say militants who attack international forces inside Afghanistan take refuge in Pakistan.
Flip sides of coin
Pakistani analyst and retired Brigadier General Mehmood Shah countered that militants attacking and killing Pakistani soldiers and civilians are given a safe haven in Afghanistan. Shah denied accusations of intentional cross-border shelling.
“It is all propaganda,” he said.
Afghanistan raised the issue of cross-border shelling at the United Nations Security council last week, saying the attacks have killed dozens of Afghans, mostly civilians.
Problems in recovery of Kabul Bank loans: Delawari
Pajhwok By Weda Baraki 02/10/2012
KABUL - The central bank said on Monday that $135 million of the loans issued by the New Kabul Bank had been recovered, but the sale of properties purchased abroad with the debts remained a challenge.
Addressing a news conference in Kabul, Da Afghanistan bank governor said they had recovered $180 million of the $980 million loans. The recovery includes $45 million interest that was viewed off by President Hamid Karzai.
Noorullah Delawari said some organisations, which had received loans worth $398 million from the bank, had promised to return them soon. He put problematic loans, involving assets in foreign countries, at $401 million.
"Since there are problems in recovery, in cooperation with the Attorney General Office (AGO), we are sending individual default cases to judicial organs,” the governor added. He promised the defaulters would not be named until court verdicts were handed down.
One audit official identified the sale of defaulters’ off-shore assets as the stumbling block to resolution of the ailing bank’s problems. Abdul Hamid Mohibi said: "Selling the high-price properties bought with Kabul Bank loans inside and outside the country is a huge difficulty for us..."
"Properties in Dubai were purchased at high prices, but their rates have considerably declined over the past two years," he said, hinting a similar problem with regard to the sale of properties inside the countries.
Some elements were hindering the sale of the bank’s assets at the Hairatan Dry Port in northern Balkh province, he explained. A high-powered delegation had reached an agreement on the sale with Afghan traders, who later backed out of their decision.
Afghanistan: We're Out of Reasons
The Huffington Post By Joseph Blady, M.D. Former program officer for the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and senior analyst for the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence 02/10/2012
In reporting about a Taliban attack against Camp Bastion in southern Afghanistan last Friday, The New York Times pointed out that the eight U.S. Marine Harrier jets destroyed in the attack were worth about $200 million. America's real loss is harder to quantify, as is so much in this war, but it's always more than we realize.
While Harriers cost about $23 million a copy when they were first purchased 10 or 20 years ago, they can no longer be replaced by anything that doesn't cost many times that amount. The cost of the two Marines killed in the attack can't be calculated at all. What is also beyond calculation is why, after 11 years of war and assurances by our top government and military leaders that things are improving in Afghanistan, the Taliban can stage such an attack against a fortified British/U.S. base.
There are numerous reasons: The Taliban are ever better at asymmetric warfare; we can't tell friend from enemy; the country has been and would be difficult for any army to control, etc. The reasons stop to matter. They are simply there, and they are compelling enough to make anyone who thinks we should spend another minute in that country have to provide a cogent explanation for that position.
Then, there's the really tough stuff. One problem is the mounting number of "green-on-blue" attacks, the shooting of our people by Afghans we are supposed to be training. Everyone clucks over this horrifying phenomenon, and members of Congress who support the war want to know what we're going to do to offer more protection for our troops. If we continue our present policy based on training the Afghans to take over their own security, there is nothing we can do to improve security! Every Coalition soldier has become an individual target. How does one propose that we protect tens of thousands of individual targets? In a conventional war, troops stay behind the heavily patrolled wire and screen anyone who approaches. But when the troops need to get among the population for any purpose, they cannot be guaranteed safety. U.S. spokesmen have talked about an "angel" approach, where one soldier observes his mates training Afghan counterparts and watches for trouble. Who watches the "angel" to make sure he's not shot?
Is this where we've come after 11 years?
Just as important is the internal rot that affects the Afghan government, led by its malignant president, Hamid Karzai. Karzai never misses an opportunity to denigrate us to the rest of the world, and to explain to his people what we're doing wrong, all the while sucking up every nickel we're stupid enough to give him. Good governance was one of the five pillars of our initial strategy in Afghanistan, going back to the invasion in 2001. Unfortunately, the Taliban murdered the best candidate for Afghan leadership, Ahmad Shah Massoud, two days before 9/11, and we were left with Karzai to work with us.
The tenacity with which we have backed Karzai defies understanding. Those who are well versed about Afghanistan know that Karzai's family was involved in the drug trade. Karzai has consistently shoveled money and contracts to cronies, and has done little to help the Coalition build a functional Afghan infrastructure. Most recently, he criticized the United States over our reluctance to turn over detainees, which is based, among other reasons, on consistent Afghan failure to properly manage detainee incarceration. This has resulted in repeated jailbreaks and premature paroles.
There are also our own consistent failings. Experts at places like the World Bank will tell you that there is nothing tougher than nation building, and there is no more challenging place to try than Afghanistan, with its difficult terrain and almost ubiquitous illiteracy. This means that there is little margin for error, but the scope of the job has defied proper oversight because real talent in this area comes at a premium, and is always in short supply. We let contracts to locals who do shoddy, unsupervised work; we get fleeced by our own contractors; and we struggle with the inconsistent efforts of our Coalition partners. There has never been enough money or coherent planning to do the job, which was probably impossible in the first place. The most important fact we managed to forget was that nothing was possible without true security, and, eleven years later, it is still lacking.
Some might argue that keeping Afghanistan free of al-Qaeda will keep America safer. They are failing to see the simplest truth about terrorism: that it is never going away, and that it sets up business anywhere that governance is weak. (Witnesses the ever-widening scope of our drone targeting.) In any event, we repeatedly forget the most basic rule of counterinsurgency. As long as the Taliban have a safe haven in Pakistan, we're not going to be rid of them.
Others state that the critical mistake was that the administration revealed our departure date. How many years were we in Afghanistan before that, where it made absolutely no difference? The only thing wrong with the departure date is that it is so far in the future. No one who supports the war can give a clear picture of what Afghanistan might look like in three to five years if we stayed, but I suspect we know anyway. "In for a penny, in for a pound" is no way to formulate a foreign policy.
Senators Slam Plans for Afghanistan-Pakistan Deal
TOLOnews.com By Shahla Murtazaie Tuesday, 02 October 2012
Afghan senators on Tuesday joined the country's lawmakers in condemning plans for an Afghanistan-Pakistan strategic agreement saying it will not be of any benefit to the country.
The senators noted the ongoing cross-border shelling from Pakistan into Afghanistan's eastern provinces to show that Pakistan was not ready to help bring peace and stability to Afghanistan.
"How can I sign the agreement with them if they are not ready to help in bringing peace to Afghanistan? Pakistan is the real cause of misery in Afghanistan," Senator Shahnaz Ghausi said.
Other senators including Gulalai Akbari called the agreement meaningless and said it will not have any benefit for Afghanistan.
"I am not in agreement and I do not want to sign an agreement which is meaningless and does not benefit Afghanistan. I don't want to sign it with a blind eye," Akbari said.
Other senators claimed that Pakistan had never stood by its promises towards Afghanistan and that there was no guarantee it will implement such a deal.
"I haven't seen anything practical from Pakistan which considers friendship and neighbourly behaviour. I don't how the Afghan government can be interested in having an agreement with them," Senator Sayed Farukh Shah Jenab said.
Afghan lawmakers on Monday said that the planned strategic agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan was meaningless and any work on it should be suspended until Pakistan stops shelling Afghanistan's east.
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."
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.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com