Tweet
Georgia pledges continued contribution to Afghan mission
TBILISI, Jan. 5 (Xinhua) -- Georgian Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili on Saturday pledged continued contribution to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
Ivanishvili made the pledge after attending the funeral for a Georgian soldier who had been found dead after missing for 10 days in Afghanistan in December last year.
Describing the participation as "a source of pride for our country," he stressed that "we should further strengthen our role in this process in the future, because it is important for our country's international image."
Meanwhile, the prime minister said his government should spare no efforts to minimize casualties.
Georgia is now the largest non-NATO troop contributor to ISAF, with a total of 1,560 Georgian servicepersons in Afghanistan, mostly deployed in the Helmand province.
The South Caucasus country so far has lost 19 soldiers in Afghanistan.
The U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, which has now turned into a NATO-led ISAF operation, has become the longest military conflict in U.S. history.
Taliban warns of prolonged war if US stay in Afghanistan
By Sayed Jawad Khaama Press January 5, 2013
The Taliban militants group in Afghanistan following a statement on Saturday warned of a prolonged war in Afghanistan if any foreign troops stay after the end of 2014, as Kabul and Washington prepare to discuss the “residual” US security presence.
This comes as Afghan president Hamid Karzai is due to meet with his US counterpart Barack Obama to discuss on a long-term security pact between the two countries which will allow the presence of US troops footprints in the country beyond 2014.
However Taliban group in its statement on Saturday said, “If America wants to leave a small or large number of its troops for whatever length of time then it means war and destruction will continue in the region for that same length.”
The source further added, “If Karzai and the Kabul regime agree with the presence of even a single American soldier then, just as presently, they shall also be responsible for all future hostilities, casualties and destruction.”
In the meantime US officials are saying that White House is willing to keep 10,000 to 15,000 troops in Afghanistan. Top American commander in Afghanistan Gen John Allen had submitted recommendations to Pentagon to keep 6,000 to 20,000 US troops in the country after 2014.
Allen, the senior US commander in Afghanistan, has submitted his much awaited recommendations on the nature and strength of US presence in the country after 2014.
Pak minister finally admits 'there is no 'good' or 'bad' Taliban'
By ANI
Islamabad, Jan 5 (ANI): Pakistan's Defence Minister Syed Naveed Qamar has said that there is no such thing as "good or bad Taliban".
Speaking to media representatives, Qamar also stressed that all those who are terrorists should be eliminated, the Dawn reports.
During the conversation outside the Parliament House, Qamar also said that Pakistan has so far released 26 Taliban prisoners.
When asked about the report on investigation of Osama bin Laden's death, he said that the Abbottabad commission report was being reviewed.
The commission would later decide whether to make the report public or not, he added. (ANI)
Final push to finish Afghanistan’s Kajaki dam comes amid security worries, muddled US strategy
By Associated Press, via The Washington Post January 5
KAJAKI, Afghanistan — In the approaching twilight of its war in Afghanistan, the U.S. is forging ahead with a giant infrastructure project long criticized as too costly in both blood and money.
It’s a $500 million effort to refurbish the massive Kajaki dam and hydro-electric power system with an extensive network of power lines and transmission substations. It is supposed to bring electricity to 332,000 people in southern Afghanistan, increase crop yields and build up a cohort of trained Afghan laborers in a region badly in need of them.
But completion, which originally was envisaged for 2005, now is projected for some time in 2015, the year after most combat troops will have left the country. And there are some crucial ifs:
If a convoy carrying 900 tons of concrete can make it up a dangerous road to the dam site without being attacked by the Taliban. If the Afghan army can hold out in an area that took thousands of U.S. Marines to secure. If the Afghan government can take on the management of the dam.
“It’s a long-term bet. I’ve said to people: We have to be patient and we have to persevere,” said Ken Yama****a, the head of USAID in Afghanistan.
The desire to succeed is understandable. The Kajaki dam on the Helmand River symbolizes for both the Afghans and their American backers what they had hoped the infusion of U.S. troops and cash would produce nationwide: an Afghan government that can provide for its people and in turn count on its support against the Taliban insurgency.
The U.S. has spent $22.34 billion on governance and development in Afghanistan since it invaded the country following the Sept. 11 attacks, much of that on projects to build roads, schools, power plants and irrigation systems. In the past two years alone, $800 million was earmarked for infrastructure projects.
Kajaki is also a symbol of the American presence in Afghanistan dating back to the 1950s and the Cold War. That was when the U.S. built the original dam, with a powerhouse added in the 1970s. But before the three turbines could be installed, the Soviets invaded and construction stopped. The dam was still squeezing out a bit of power in 2001 when the U.S. attacked and, ironically enough, bombed the dam’s power transmission line.
In the latest phase of the Kajaki saga, fighting as well as limited oversight of spending has led to huge delays and cost overruns, and now Helmand province, home of the Kajaki dam, is seeing the first and largest wave of U.S. troop reductions, with 10,000 of 17,000 U.S. Marines already gone. That means most of the Kajaki project is going forward with Afghan forces providing nearly all the security in an area that was a Taliban stronghold until a year ago.
Afghans here are already hedging their bets.
The number of workers on a U.S.-funded construction project next to Kajaki has dwindled from 200 to 20 since last fall, and those remaining say workers feel the risk isn’t worth the $6 daily paycheck.
“They can’t come here because all the routes to the district are controlled by the Taliban,” said Abdul Razziq, a 28-year-old villager working on construction of a new district government center next to the dam.
His family supports the government, so he at least doesn’t have to lie to keep his place of work secret. Not so Timur Shah, who spends a couple of months at a time working at Kajaki. “My immediate family knows I am here. But if anyone else asks they will make something up,” he said.
Shah said security improved when U.S. Marines flooded the province, but is deteriorating as the Marines leave.
“Just at the time the American forces started leaving here, the Taliban started to appear again, in the whole area,” Shah said.
Cellphone service also stopped working in Kajaki district in late fall. It is common for insurgents to disrupt service in areas they control, though the construction workers say they’re just as ready to believe to say the Americans blocked calls.
U.S. officials say the wariness is to be expected at a time of transition. They point out that Afghan security forces have increased their presence around the dam and that attacks, while still regular, appear to be decreasing.
“There’s an ebb and flow,” said Marine Capt. Glen Baker, one of a small group of Marines who continue to hold an outpost in Kajaki and advise Afghan forces in the area. “There was an increase when the Marines pulled out and there has been a decrease subsequently.”
The company working on building the dam has also been able this year to send supplies via road — four convoys of trucks have made the trip without incident. Previously, equipment was being helicoptered in at enormous cost.
The core of the project is the installation of a third power-generating turbine at the dam, an effort that planned since 2002. The installation was originally budgeted at $18 million. Now it is getting another $85 million and is scheduled to be installed in March, after being delayed by efforts to weed out subcontracting applicants suspected of having Taliban ties.
But many in Afghanistan have already given up on Kajaki.
“It is 10 years now that Kajaki dam has been as it is. Too much money has been spent there in the name of reconstruction ... all of that money wasted,” President Hamid Karzai said in a speech in December.
Shah, the construction worker, echoed the complaint.
“When the international forces first came here they told us, ‘In one year you will have the dam, you will have power, you will have roads.’ But that didn’t happen. ... and we are still waiting,” he said.
Even if the project now overcomes the security and logistical barriers, there are questions about whether it’s worth the cost.
The dam can’t provide enough power to sustain the main city in the region — Kandahar — and the price tag is steep for the extra irrigation it brings to the Helmand River valley.
And there are also signs of the difficulties the Afghan government may face when it takes over the management of the dam.
One area already controlled by the Afghans is the management of irrigation water. The water has to hold to a certain level through the winter to keep electricity flowing, but last year the manager in charge of irrigation yielded to pressure from farmers and kept the water valve open.
“He ignored the need to close it in September. So the level of water was reduced,” said Shaqib Nassar, the utility’s chief operations officer, which oversees the dam. As a result the dam can only produce 24 megawatts, rather than 33 megawatts, he explained.
And the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, the U.S. government watchdog for spending in the country, said in a report in December that $12.8 million in electricity distribution equipment provided to the Afghan energy utility in Kandahar was sitting unused because the Afghan staff “lacked the technical and operational capacity to properly install and manage it.” The Kandahar utility also oversees Kajaki dam.
As recently as mid-2012 the U.S. was considering scrapping the whole project and switching the money to less unwieldy projects. Then it doubled down.
“Several months back we had a lot of discussion about whether continued investment in this would be worthwhile ... There are certainly voices that say, ‘We’ve invested this much, let’s finish it,’ and there are others that say, ‘We’ve invested this much, however the additional investment just won’t get us there,’” said Yama****a, the USAID official.
“In the end, the discussion and the conclusion was that the output of electricity plus the development programs in the Helmand valley, plus the security it brings, equals a risk worth taking.”
From the air, the Helmand River is a narrow turquoise ribbon through the desert. The dam is a stacked concrete wall that bisects the river, creating a reservoir ringed with trees — a few spots of green in a vast field of brown.
The helicopters that fly to the dam are owned by a U.S. contractor and depart from a U.S. military base. As resources and Americans become fewer, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and USAID say they expect oversight to depend increasingly on Afghan partners. Everyone says they are committed to finishing the project; they’ll just have to manage much of it from afar.
Sayed Rasoul is an Afghan engineer with decades spent in the management of Kajaki as well as the Kandahar and Helmand power grid. He says he’s confident the dam will be completed and deliver the riches promised.
He also says he’s certain that the Americans will be in Kajaki long after the last of the combat troops leave.
“Maybe the American forces will leave here,” he said, “but the engineers will be with us.”
Afghan Request for Spy Balloons Is Up in the Air
Wall Street Journal By NATHAN HODGE January 4, 2013
ARGHANDAB DISTRICT, Afghanistan - Chief of Police Niaz Mohammad had good news for his American military guests here: Security was improving in this crucial district bordering the southern city of Kandahar, and Taliban insurgents were no longer gathering in large numbers to stage attacks.
But Mr. Mohammad had a pointed question: When the Americans leave, who will provide the eyes in the sky that are keeping the insurgents away?
"At nighttime when they [insurgents] want to come and put in roadside bombs for us, we can't see them," he said. "We don't have technology like balloonsand that is a big thing for us."
When the U.S. sent troops to Arghandab as part of the 2010 surge, it also brought balloons laden with surveillance gear. The craft, which are also known as aerostats and look like smaller, pilotless versions of the Goodyear Blimp, are a common feature of the landscape in Afghanistan. Military officers describe them as a "force multiplier" for spotting potential threats and protecting forward operating bases. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made deployment of surveillance balloons a priority for the Pentagon during the surge.
Most U.S. and international troops are scheduled to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014, taking their gear with them. And Afghan security officials are worried about how the cash-strapped Afghan military will fare without drones and other surveillance tools to spot insurgents.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he would raise his government's request for better equipment when he visits Washington in the coming week. Senior Afghan officials say surveillance technology—including drones, balloons and other equipment—is on their wish list.
"With regards to intelligence, we are dependent on ISAF," said Maj. Gen. Zahir Azimi, spokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry, referring to the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force. "We need training and equipment."
The U.S. State Department and the White House have yet to comment publicly on expectations for the meeting in Washington. But U.S. officials privately express concern that Afghan leaders are too focused on high-end military equipment that their military can't afford to sustain.
The balloons were developed as a relatively cost-effective solution for watching over remote bases. Cameras on top of towers are vulnerable to small-arms fire, and keeping drones in the air around the clock is expensive, according to a U.S. Navy news release from 2011.
The Afghans are already familiar with U.S. spy gear. In a trial in December in Arghandab, a detachment of Afghan soldiers tested their ability to launch a U.S.-made aerostat at Combat Outpost Terra Nova, a small base in Kandahar's Arghandab district.
As Maj. Gen. Abdul Hamid, the commander of the Afghan army's Kandahar-based 205th Corps, watched the 75-foot-long blimp lumbering into the sky, tethered to the ground by a long cable, he said this kind of equipment could give Afghan troops advance warning of potential threats.
"We can discover the enemy, we can see the enemy," he said. "If they are planting IEDs, if they are coming for ambushes. We can shoot them, we can capture them."
U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Paul Nakasone, who works for the U.S.-led joint command in Afghanistan, said aerostats could, in theory, be a useful asset for the Afghan military, which doesn't have a fleet of drones or manned surveillance planes to watch over the country's rugged terrain.
"They are not going to have the airborne fleet that we have right now," he said. "This is a great enabler for them as they look to the future to provide persistent stare on a target."
Top U.S. officers, however, emphasize that the experiment was a "proof-of-concept"—a mere demonstration. A formal effort to provide surveillance blimps to Afghan forces isn't yet under way. Launching and recovering the balloon is only one part of a complex operation, which also includes maintenance of sensitive surveillance cameras and other costly equipment.
The commander in charge of the coalition's day-to-day operations in Afghanistan, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. James Terry, told The Wall Street Journal on a visit to Arghandab there were "many miles to go" before moving forward with such a project, because military planners need to assess whether the Afghan government could afford to sustain its own fleet of surveillance balloons over the long term.
Afghan security forces, Gen. Terry said, need to play to their traditional strengths, such as information gathered from local informants—known in military shorthand as "human intelligence," or HUMINT. "I think they realize how much better they are in some intelligence, specifically HUMINT, than we are," he said.
Equipping the country's military is a sensitive point in U.S.-Afghan relations. Top Afghan officials have made it clear they would like a more modern military that is capable of defending against its neighbors, rather than a more rudimentary force that is focused on internal security and combating low-tech insurgents. And Afghan troops remain dependent on U.S. and international allies for medical evacuation and close air support—as well as for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
U.S. officials said the blimp project showed initial promise. Ray Gutierrez, a civilian who oversees training and employment of the balloons, said the handpicked group of Afghan soldiers who trained to operate the balloons were "doing a fantastic job," learning how to launch, recover and maintain the aerostats.
"They are capable now," he said. "And they know the terrain and they know the enemy."
Nonetheless, the planned withdrawal of U.S. forces is cause for anxiety in Arghandab. In meetings with Afghan police and security officials in Arghandab, U.S. officers heard a familiar refrain: The Afghans needed better logistics, and more fuel for their vehicles.
Mohammad Isaq, police commander for Arghandab's west side, turned out in dress uniform to meet Gen. Terry. He too asked about fuel.
Gen. Terry then asked him about how confident he was about taking the lead for security in next year's fighting season, as the Americans recede to the background.
"God willing, we will try our best," Mr. Isaq said.
Write to Nathan Hodge at nathan.hodge@wsj.com
Nearly 130 Afghan prisoners released from Bagram prison
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Jan. 5 (Xinhua) -- Nearly 130 Afghan prisoners, who were formerly held by the NATO and U.S. forces in charges of being involved in anti-government activities, were released from Bagram prison, an official said Saturday.
"Up to 129 prisoners, who have been detained and held in Bagram prison over the last couple of years but there were no evidence to proof their involvement in the insurgency, were released and would join their families today," General Mohammad Yar Barakzai, an Afghan defense ministry official in charge of the prisons, told a ceremony here.
The NATO-led coalition forces handed over the control of the Bagram detention center to the Afghan government in March last year. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has ordered the concerned authorities to review the cases of more than 3,000 prisoners held in the detention center after the Afghan government took control of the prison.
"We are sure their release could further help the government efforts in bringing peace and will support the peace and reconciliation process in the country," Barakzai added.
The prisoners were detained in southern Kandahar and neighboring Zabul and Uruzgan provinces, he said.
More than 350 prisoners have been released from Bagram over the past couple of days.
Karzai and other leaders have repeatedly offered peace talks with the Taliban. However, the insurgent group has categorically rejected the offer, saying there will be no talks until foreign troops leave the country.
The Afghan president and his U.S. counterpart Barak Obama will hold talks in the U.S. on a security pact between the two countries later this week and would decide the number of U.S. forces to leave in the country after 2014 when majority of the U.S. and NATO forces leave the country.
Earlier Saturday, Taliban in a statement released to the local media warned that they will continue to fight with the government and foreign forces if any foreign troops stay in the country after 2014.
Deeper Troop Cutback Weighed
Wall Street Journal By ADAM ENTOUS and JULIAN E. BARNES January 4, 2013
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has sketched out plans for a scaled-back presence in Afghanistan, after the Obama administration pressed for options that would leave fewer troops in the country after 2014 than defense officials have proposed.
New Pentagon options would leave roughly 3,000, 6,000 or 9,000 U.S. troops, laying the groundwork for a more bare-bones international coalition in the country. Gen. John Allen, the commander of U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan, had earlier suggested 6,000 to 15,000 U.S. troops would be needed.
The new deployment options come as Afghan President Hamid Karzai prepares to visit Washington next week to discuss the U.S. security presence after 2014, when most foreign forces in the country are slated to have departed.
A smaller U.S. commitment would result in a corresponding drop in forces from other international coalition partners. The U.S. and its allies are negotiating future troop commitments on the basis of a formula that calls for U.S. troops to make up two-thirds of any follow-on force.
With a smaller U.S. troop presence, the State Department would also be forced to cut plans for large-scale diplomatic outposts across Afghanistan, and it would heighten the U.S.'s reliance on drones to monitor and target militants after most manned aircraft and their pilots pull out.
In late 2010, some senior administration and defense officials told NATO allies that the U.S. may need to keep at least 40,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014, when the current NATO mission concludes. A year later, officials suggested troop levels could be closer to 20,000. As recently as November, Gen. Allen spoke privately with Pentagon chiefs about the need for 15,000 troops from the U.S. alone.
Last week Gen. Allen laid out plans that envisioned 15,000 international troops in Afghanistan after 2014, about two-thirds of them from the U.S.
A final decision on troop levels has yet to be made by President Barack Obama, officials stressed. The president will discuss that subject and other issues when he meets with Mr. Karzai. Afghan officials said they are taking a wait-and-see approach.
Some NATO officials said the lower numbers could be a tactic to put pressure on Mr. Karzai to quickly cut a deal for a security presence. But U.S. officials say the lower numbers reflect the political reality in the U.S., amid wariness of costly long-term commitments overseas at a time of a budget crisis at home.
U.S. officials played down prospects for a final deal during Mr. Karzai's visit, citing the complications of negotiating a long-term agreement and the difficulty of reaching an agreement with other potential contributors to a new international mission.
To partially offset the cuts and set a positive tone for the talks, the Pentagon told Congress on Friday it would provide the Afghans with about $700 million in equipment, including up to 30 Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters and small unarmed tactical drones, with additional installments to come.
Mr. Obama still could reject all three of the Pentagon's options and decide against keeping any troops in the country after 2014, the officials said. It is unclear when an announcement will be made.
Spokesmen for the White House and Gen. Allen declined to comment on any of the recommendations.
In its recommendation to the White House, the military said keeping 3,000 or fewer troops in Afghanistan after 2014 would pose serious risks. Such a small force could do little to protect the Afghan government or prevent the possible return of al Qaeda-linked militants, officials and experts said.
The Pentagon prefers the roughly 9,000 troop option, officials said, which would allow the U.S. to position a counterterrorism force on at least two bases in Afghanistan—most likely Bagram north of Kabul and Kandahar in the south, as well as to conduct limited training missions with Afghan forces.
But many at the White House prefer a troop level of roughly 6,000, officials said. Some NATO officials and experts say a U.S. force of that size would be too small to effectively train Afghan forces to fight the Taliban and wouldn't be large enough to mount a countrywide special-operations campaign against militants or bail out Afghan units if they get into trouble.
"I think you may assume way too much risk if you go below that 6,000 figure," said Mark Jacobson, who served as NATO's deputy senior civilian representative until September 2011.
Likewise, American and NATO officials predicted a U.S. commitment of 6,000 troops or less would result in a large drop in troop commitments from NATO and non-NATO partners.
"The message will be clear-cut," a senior NATO official said of any U.S. decision to slash its projected force below 9,000 troops. "Serious nations can't afford to leave Afghanistan like this."
Within the administration and the Pentagon, defenders of the 6,000 and 9,000 troop options said it makes sense to go with a smaller number because the mission of any follow-on force would be narrowly defined: keeping al Qaeda from making a comeback and providing limited, high-end training to elite Afghan units.
A senior Obama administration official said the goal in Afghanistan is to deny al Qaeda a haven and to ensure Afghan forces can prevent the government from falling to the Taliban. "Those are the determinations that will drive a resource decision," the official said.
These officials say Afghan security forces have made important gains in recent years, bolstering U.S. confidence.
Afghan forces "have made more progress than virtually anyone expected," a senior U.S. official said. "That's why we may not need as many troops as we might have thought we needed at one point."
Jeff Dressler, a researcher at the Institute for the Study of War, strongly disagreed with what he and other experts see as overly optimistic assessments of Afghan capabilities. "If you were to pull that assistance away, their capabilities shrink drastically," he said.
The new options represent a significant change in White House thinking, said NATO officials and other experts.
The Pentagon hasn't proposed an option for keeping zero troops in Afghanistan at the end of 2014 and doesn't expect Mr. Obama to choose that path. But zero is a real option for the president, some officials said, pointing to the course he took in Iraq in 2011 after negotiations with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki broke down over U.S. demands for immunity for any U.S. troops that would remain in that country.
Mr. Karzai has signaled that he would be willing to provide immunity to U.S. troops in Afghanistan if Mr. Obama provides him with guarantees that Washington will build up the Afghan military and take other steps to respect Afghan sovereignty, defense officials said.
Afghanistan on Friday released 80 prisoners formerly held by the U.S., the Associated Press reported, part of a 400-detainee release that an Afghan defense official described as a peace overture—though such moves could aggravate U.S. fears that Kabul is giving freedom to dangerous militants.
Pentagon spokesman George Little declined to comment on the troop-level recommendations. "The options are being discussed in confidential discussions," Mr. Little said. "This is obviously the president's decisionand his to make."
Once a decision is made on post-2014 troop levels, the Pentagon will recommend how quickly to draw down the 66,000 U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan. Gen. Allen favors a gradual withdrawal of troops tied to security benchmarks and other events, including the Afghan presidential election in 2014.
Defense officials said they expected the White House to ask commanders to cut the force to about 30,000 troops by the end of 2013—a level not seen since Mr. Obama came to office in 2009. Mr. Obama more than doubled troop levels before deciding to wind down the war.
The State Department still plans to maintain an embassy in Kabul and four consulates—in Herat, Jalalabad, Kandahar and Mazer-e-Sharif. But staffing levels may be dramatically reduced as a result of the scaled-back troop presence. —Dion Nissenbaum and Siobhan Gorman contributed to this article.
Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com and Julian E. Barnes atjulian.barnes@wsj.com
www.afghanistannewscenter.com
TBILISI, Jan. 5 (Xinhua) -- Georgian Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili on Saturday pledged continued contribution to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
Ivanishvili made the pledge after attending the funeral for a Georgian soldier who had been found dead after missing for 10 days in Afghanistan in December last year.
Describing the participation as "a source of pride for our country," he stressed that "we should further strengthen our role in this process in the future, because it is important for our country's international image."
Meanwhile, the prime minister said his government should spare no efforts to minimize casualties.
Georgia is now the largest non-NATO troop contributor to ISAF, with a total of 1,560 Georgian servicepersons in Afghanistan, mostly deployed in the Helmand province.
The South Caucasus country so far has lost 19 soldiers in Afghanistan.
The U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, which has now turned into a NATO-led ISAF operation, has become the longest military conflict in U.S. history.
Taliban warns of prolonged war if US stay in Afghanistan
By Sayed Jawad Khaama Press January 5, 2013
The Taliban militants group in Afghanistan following a statement on Saturday warned of a prolonged war in Afghanistan if any foreign troops stay after the end of 2014, as Kabul and Washington prepare to discuss the “residual” US security presence.
This comes as Afghan president Hamid Karzai is due to meet with his US counterpart Barack Obama to discuss on a long-term security pact between the two countries which will allow the presence of US troops footprints in the country beyond 2014.
However Taliban group in its statement on Saturday said, “If America wants to leave a small or large number of its troops for whatever length of time then it means war and destruction will continue in the region for that same length.”
The source further added, “If Karzai and the Kabul regime agree with the presence of even a single American soldier then, just as presently, they shall also be responsible for all future hostilities, casualties and destruction.”
In the meantime US officials are saying that White House is willing to keep 10,000 to 15,000 troops in Afghanistan. Top American commander in Afghanistan Gen John Allen had submitted recommendations to Pentagon to keep 6,000 to 20,000 US troops in the country after 2014.
Allen, the senior US commander in Afghanistan, has submitted his much awaited recommendations on the nature and strength of US presence in the country after 2014.
Pak minister finally admits 'there is no 'good' or 'bad' Taliban'
By ANI
Islamabad, Jan 5 (ANI): Pakistan's Defence Minister Syed Naveed Qamar has said that there is no such thing as "good or bad Taliban".
Speaking to media representatives, Qamar also stressed that all those who are terrorists should be eliminated, the Dawn reports.
During the conversation outside the Parliament House, Qamar also said that Pakistan has so far released 26 Taliban prisoners.
When asked about the report on investigation of Osama bin Laden's death, he said that the Abbottabad commission report was being reviewed.
The commission would later decide whether to make the report public or not, he added. (ANI)
Final push to finish Afghanistan’s Kajaki dam comes amid security worries, muddled US strategy
By Associated Press, via The Washington Post January 5
KAJAKI, Afghanistan — In the approaching twilight of its war in Afghanistan, the U.S. is forging ahead with a giant infrastructure project long criticized as too costly in both blood and money.
It’s a $500 million effort to refurbish the massive Kajaki dam and hydro-electric power system with an extensive network of power lines and transmission substations. It is supposed to bring electricity to 332,000 people in southern Afghanistan, increase crop yields and build up a cohort of trained Afghan laborers in a region badly in need of them.
But completion, which originally was envisaged for 2005, now is projected for some time in 2015, the year after most combat troops will have left the country. And there are some crucial ifs:
If a convoy carrying 900 tons of concrete can make it up a dangerous road to the dam site without being attacked by the Taliban. If the Afghan army can hold out in an area that took thousands of U.S. Marines to secure. If the Afghan government can take on the management of the dam.
“It’s a long-term bet. I’ve said to people: We have to be patient and we have to persevere,” said Ken Yama****a, the head of USAID in Afghanistan.
The desire to succeed is understandable. The Kajaki dam on the Helmand River symbolizes for both the Afghans and their American backers what they had hoped the infusion of U.S. troops and cash would produce nationwide: an Afghan government that can provide for its people and in turn count on its support against the Taliban insurgency.
The U.S. has spent $22.34 billion on governance and development in Afghanistan since it invaded the country following the Sept. 11 attacks, much of that on projects to build roads, schools, power plants and irrigation systems. In the past two years alone, $800 million was earmarked for infrastructure projects.
Kajaki is also a symbol of the American presence in Afghanistan dating back to the 1950s and the Cold War. That was when the U.S. built the original dam, with a powerhouse added in the 1970s. But before the three turbines could be installed, the Soviets invaded and construction stopped. The dam was still squeezing out a bit of power in 2001 when the U.S. attacked and, ironically enough, bombed the dam’s power transmission line.
In the latest phase of the Kajaki saga, fighting as well as limited oversight of spending has led to huge delays and cost overruns, and now Helmand province, home of the Kajaki dam, is seeing the first and largest wave of U.S. troop reductions, with 10,000 of 17,000 U.S. Marines already gone. That means most of the Kajaki project is going forward with Afghan forces providing nearly all the security in an area that was a Taliban stronghold until a year ago.
Afghans here are already hedging their bets.
The number of workers on a U.S.-funded construction project next to Kajaki has dwindled from 200 to 20 since last fall, and those remaining say workers feel the risk isn’t worth the $6 daily paycheck.
“They can’t come here because all the routes to the district are controlled by the Taliban,” said Abdul Razziq, a 28-year-old villager working on construction of a new district government center next to the dam.
His family supports the government, so he at least doesn’t have to lie to keep his place of work secret. Not so Timur Shah, who spends a couple of months at a time working at Kajaki. “My immediate family knows I am here. But if anyone else asks they will make something up,” he said.
Shah said security improved when U.S. Marines flooded the province, but is deteriorating as the Marines leave.
“Just at the time the American forces started leaving here, the Taliban started to appear again, in the whole area,” Shah said.
Cellphone service also stopped working in Kajaki district in late fall. It is common for insurgents to disrupt service in areas they control, though the construction workers say they’re just as ready to believe to say the Americans blocked calls.
U.S. officials say the wariness is to be expected at a time of transition. They point out that Afghan security forces have increased their presence around the dam and that attacks, while still regular, appear to be decreasing.
“There’s an ebb and flow,” said Marine Capt. Glen Baker, one of a small group of Marines who continue to hold an outpost in Kajaki and advise Afghan forces in the area. “There was an increase when the Marines pulled out and there has been a decrease subsequently.”
The company working on building the dam has also been able this year to send supplies via road — four convoys of trucks have made the trip without incident. Previously, equipment was being helicoptered in at enormous cost.
The core of the project is the installation of a third power-generating turbine at the dam, an effort that planned since 2002. The installation was originally budgeted at $18 million. Now it is getting another $85 million and is scheduled to be installed in March, after being delayed by efforts to weed out subcontracting applicants suspected of having Taliban ties.
But many in Afghanistan have already given up on Kajaki.
“It is 10 years now that Kajaki dam has been as it is. Too much money has been spent there in the name of reconstruction ... all of that money wasted,” President Hamid Karzai said in a speech in December.
Shah, the construction worker, echoed the complaint.
“When the international forces first came here they told us, ‘In one year you will have the dam, you will have power, you will have roads.’ But that didn’t happen. ... and we are still waiting,” he said.
Even if the project now overcomes the security and logistical barriers, there are questions about whether it’s worth the cost.
The dam can’t provide enough power to sustain the main city in the region — Kandahar — and the price tag is steep for the extra irrigation it brings to the Helmand River valley.
And there are also signs of the difficulties the Afghan government may face when it takes over the management of the dam.
One area already controlled by the Afghans is the management of irrigation water. The water has to hold to a certain level through the winter to keep electricity flowing, but last year the manager in charge of irrigation yielded to pressure from farmers and kept the water valve open.
“He ignored the need to close it in September. So the level of water was reduced,” said Shaqib Nassar, the utility’s chief operations officer, which oversees the dam. As a result the dam can only produce 24 megawatts, rather than 33 megawatts, he explained.
And the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, the U.S. government watchdog for spending in the country, said in a report in December that $12.8 million in electricity distribution equipment provided to the Afghan energy utility in Kandahar was sitting unused because the Afghan staff “lacked the technical and operational capacity to properly install and manage it.” The Kandahar utility also oversees Kajaki dam.
As recently as mid-2012 the U.S. was considering scrapping the whole project and switching the money to less unwieldy projects. Then it doubled down.
“Several months back we had a lot of discussion about whether continued investment in this would be worthwhile ... There are certainly voices that say, ‘We’ve invested this much, let’s finish it,’ and there are others that say, ‘We’ve invested this much, however the additional investment just won’t get us there,’” said Yama****a, the USAID official.
“In the end, the discussion and the conclusion was that the output of electricity plus the development programs in the Helmand valley, plus the security it brings, equals a risk worth taking.”
From the air, the Helmand River is a narrow turquoise ribbon through the desert. The dam is a stacked concrete wall that bisects the river, creating a reservoir ringed with trees — a few spots of green in a vast field of brown.
The helicopters that fly to the dam are owned by a U.S. contractor and depart from a U.S. military base. As resources and Americans become fewer, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and USAID say they expect oversight to depend increasingly on Afghan partners. Everyone says they are committed to finishing the project; they’ll just have to manage much of it from afar.
Sayed Rasoul is an Afghan engineer with decades spent in the management of Kajaki as well as the Kandahar and Helmand power grid. He says he’s confident the dam will be completed and deliver the riches promised.
He also says he’s certain that the Americans will be in Kajaki long after the last of the combat troops leave.
“Maybe the American forces will leave here,” he said, “but the engineers will be with us.”
Afghan Request for Spy Balloons Is Up in the Air
Wall Street Journal By NATHAN HODGE January 4, 2013
ARGHANDAB DISTRICT, Afghanistan - Chief of Police Niaz Mohammad had good news for his American military guests here: Security was improving in this crucial district bordering the southern city of Kandahar, and Taliban insurgents were no longer gathering in large numbers to stage attacks.
But Mr. Mohammad had a pointed question: When the Americans leave, who will provide the eyes in the sky that are keeping the insurgents away?
"At nighttime when they [insurgents] want to come and put in roadside bombs for us, we can't see them," he said. "We don't have technology like balloonsand that is a big thing for us."
When the U.S. sent troops to Arghandab as part of the 2010 surge, it also brought balloons laden with surveillance gear. The craft, which are also known as aerostats and look like smaller, pilotless versions of the Goodyear Blimp, are a common feature of the landscape in Afghanistan. Military officers describe them as a "force multiplier" for spotting potential threats and protecting forward operating bases. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made deployment of surveillance balloons a priority for the Pentagon during the surge.
Most U.S. and international troops are scheduled to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014, taking their gear with them. And Afghan security officials are worried about how the cash-strapped Afghan military will fare without drones and other surveillance tools to spot insurgents.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he would raise his government's request for better equipment when he visits Washington in the coming week. Senior Afghan officials say surveillance technology—including drones, balloons and other equipment—is on their wish list.
"With regards to intelligence, we are dependent on ISAF," said Maj. Gen. Zahir Azimi, spokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry, referring to the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force. "We need training and equipment."
The U.S. State Department and the White House have yet to comment publicly on expectations for the meeting in Washington. But U.S. officials privately express concern that Afghan leaders are too focused on high-end military equipment that their military can't afford to sustain.
The balloons were developed as a relatively cost-effective solution for watching over remote bases. Cameras on top of towers are vulnerable to small-arms fire, and keeping drones in the air around the clock is expensive, according to a U.S. Navy news release from 2011.
The Afghans are already familiar with U.S. spy gear. In a trial in December in Arghandab, a detachment of Afghan soldiers tested their ability to launch a U.S.-made aerostat at Combat Outpost Terra Nova, a small base in Kandahar's Arghandab district.
As Maj. Gen. Abdul Hamid, the commander of the Afghan army's Kandahar-based 205th Corps, watched the 75-foot-long blimp lumbering into the sky, tethered to the ground by a long cable, he said this kind of equipment could give Afghan troops advance warning of potential threats.
"We can discover the enemy, we can see the enemy," he said. "If they are planting IEDs, if they are coming for ambushes. We can shoot them, we can capture them."
U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Paul Nakasone, who works for the U.S.-led joint command in Afghanistan, said aerostats could, in theory, be a useful asset for the Afghan military, which doesn't have a fleet of drones or manned surveillance planes to watch over the country's rugged terrain.
"They are not going to have the airborne fleet that we have right now," he said. "This is a great enabler for them as they look to the future to provide persistent stare on a target."
Top U.S. officers, however, emphasize that the experiment was a "proof-of-concept"—a mere demonstration. A formal effort to provide surveillance blimps to Afghan forces isn't yet under way. Launching and recovering the balloon is only one part of a complex operation, which also includes maintenance of sensitive surveillance cameras and other costly equipment.
The commander in charge of the coalition's day-to-day operations in Afghanistan, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. James Terry, told The Wall Street Journal on a visit to Arghandab there were "many miles to go" before moving forward with such a project, because military planners need to assess whether the Afghan government could afford to sustain its own fleet of surveillance balloons over the long term.
Afghan security forces, Gen. Terry said, need to play to their traditional strengths, such as information gathered from local informants—known in military shorthand as "human intelligence," or HUMINT. "I think they realize how much better they are in some intelligence, specifically HUMINT, than we are," he said.
Equipping the country's military is a sensitive point in U.S.-Afghan relations. Top Afghan officials have made it clear they would like a more modern military that is capable of defending against its neighbors, rather than a more rudimentary force that is focused on internal security and combating low-tech insurgents. And Afghan troops remain dependent on U.S. and international allies for medical evacuation and close air support—as well as for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
U.S. officials said the blimp project showed initial promise. Ray Gutierrez, a civilian who oversees training and employment of the balloons, said the handpicked group of Afghan soldiers who trained to operate the balloons were "doing a fantastic job," learning how to launch, recover and maintain the aerostats.
"They are capable now," he said. "And they know the terrain and they know the enemy."
Nonetheless, the planned withdrawal of U.S. forces is cause for anxiety in Arghandab. In meetings with Afghan police and security officials in Arghandab, U.S. officers heard a familiar refrain: The Afghans needed better logistics, and more fuel for their vehicles.
Mohammad Isaq, police commander for Arghandab's west side, turned out in dress uniform to meet Gen. Terry. He too asked about fuel.
Gen. Terry then asked him about how confident he was about taking the lead for security in next year's fighting season, as the Americans recede to the background.
"God willing, we will try our best," Mr. Isaq said.
Write to Nathan Hodge at nathan.hodge@wsj.com
Nearly 130 Afghan prisoners released from Bagram prison
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Jan. 5 (Xinhua) -- Nearly 130 Afghan prisoners, who were formerly held by the NATO and U.S. forces in charges of being involved in anti-government activities, were released from Bagram prison, an official said Saturday.
"Up to 129 prisoners, who have been detained and held in Bagram prison over the last couple of years but there were no evidence to proof their involvement in the insurgency, were released and would join their families today," General Mohammad Yar Barakzai, an Afghan defense ministry official in charge of the prisons, told a ceremony here.
The NATO-led coalition forces handed over the control of the Bagram detention center to the Afghan government in March last year. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has ordered the concerned authorities to review the cases of more than 3,000 prisoners held in the detention center after the Afghan government took control of the prison.
"We are sure their release could further help the government efforts in bringing peace and will support the peace and reconciliation process in the country," Barakzai added.
The prisoners were detained in southern Kandahar and neighboring Zabul and Uruzgan provinces, he said.
More than 350 prisoners have been released from Bagram over the past couple of days.
Karzai and other leaders have repeatedly offered peace talks with the Taliban. However, the insurgent group has categorically rejected the offer, saying there will be no talks until foreign troops leave the country.
The Afghan president and his U.S. counterpart Barak Obama will hold talks in the U.S. on a security pact between the two countries later this week and would decide the number of U.S. forces to leave in the country after 2014 when majority of the U.S. and NATO forces leave the country.
Earlier Saturday, Taliban in a statement released to the local media warned that they will continue to fight with the government and foreign forces if any foreign troops stay in the country after 2014.
Deeper Troop Cutback Weighed
Wall Street Journal By ADAM ENTOUS and JULIAN E. BARNES January 4, 2013
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has sketched out plans for a scaled-back presence in Afghanistan, after the Obama administration pressed for options that would leave fewer troops in the country after 2014 than defense officials have proposed.
New Pentagon options would leave roughly 3,000, 6,000 or 9,000 U.S. troops, laying the groundwork for a more bare-bones international coalition in the country. Gen. John Allen, the commander of U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan, had earlier suggested 6,000 to 15,000 U.S. troops would be needed.
The new deployment options come as Afghan President Hamid Karzai prepares to visit Washington next week to discuss the U.S. security presence after 2014, when most foreign forces in the country are slated to have departed.
A smaller U.S. commitment would result in a corresponding drop in forces from other international coalition partners. The U.S. and its allies are negotiating future troop commitments on the basis of a formula that calls for U.S. troops to make up two-thirds of any follow-on force.
With a smaller U.S. troop presence, the State Department would also be forced to cut plans for large-scale diplomatic outposts across Afghanistan, and it would heighten the U.S.'s reliance on drones to monitor and target militants after most manned aircraft and their pilots pull out.
In late 2010, some senior administration and defense officials told NATO allies that the U.S. may need to keep at least 40,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014, when the current NATO mission concludes. A year later, officials suggested troop levels could be closer to 20,000. As recently as November, Gen. Allen spoke privately with Pentagon chiefs about the need for 15,000 troops from the U.S. alone.
Last week Gen. Allen laid out plans that envisioned 15,000 international troops in Afghanistan after 2014, about two-thirds of them from the U.S.
A final decision on troop levels has yet to be made by President Barack Obama, officials stressed. The president will discuss that subject and other issues when he meets with Mr. Karzai. Afghan officials said they are taking a wait-and-see approach.
Some NATO officials said the lower numbers could be a tactic to put pressure on Mr. Karzai to quickly cut a deal for a security presence. But U.S. officials say the lower numbers reflect the political reality in the U.S., amid wariness of costly long-term commitments overseas at a time of a budget crisis at home.
U.S. officials played down prospects for a final deal during Mr. Karzai's visit, citing the complications of negotiating a long-term agreement and the difficulty of reaching an agreement with other potential contributors to a new international mission.
To partially offset the cuts and set a positive tone for the talks, the Pentagon told Congress on Friday it would provide the Afghans with about $700 million in equipment, including up to 30 Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters and small unarmed tactical drones, with additional installments to come.
Mr. Obama still could reject all three of the Pentagon's options and decide against keeping any troops in the country after 2014, the officials said. It is unclear when an announcement will be made.
Spokesmen for the White House and Gen. Allen declined to comment on any of the recommendations.
In its recommendation to the White House, the military said keeping 3,000 or fewer troops in Afghanistan after 2014 would pose serious risks. Such a small force could do little to protect the Afghan government or prevent the possible return of al Qaeda-linked militants, officials and experts said.
The Pentagon prefers the roughly 9,000 troop option, officials said, which would allow the U.S. to position a counterterrorism force on at least two bases in Afghanistan—most likely Bagram north of Kabul and Kandahar in the south, as well as to conduct limited training missions with Afghan forces.
But many at the White House prefer a troop level of roughly 6,000, officials said. Some NATO officials and experts say a U.S. force of that size would be too small to effectively train Afghan forces to fight the Taliban and wouldn't be large enough to mount a countrywide special-operations campaign against militants or bail out Afghan units if they get into trouble.
"I think you may assume way too much risk if you go below that 6,000 figure," said Mark Jacobson, who served as NATO's deputy senior civilian representative until September 2011.
Likewise, American and NATO officials predicted a U.S. commitment of 6,000 troops or less would result in a large drop in troop commitments from NATO and non-NATO partners.
"The message will be clear-cut," a senior NATO official said of any U.S. decision to slash its projected force below 9,000 troops. "Serious nations can't afford to leave Afghanistan like this."
Within the administration and the Pentagon, defenders of the 6,000 and 9,000 troop options said it makes sense to go with a smaller number because the mission of any follow-on force would be narrowly defined: keeping al Qaeda from making a comeback and providing limited, high-end training to elite Afghan units.
A senior Obama administration official said the goal in Afghanistan is to deny al Qaeda a haven and to ensure Afghan forces can prevent the government from falling to the Taliban. "Those are the determinations that will drive a resource decision," the official said.
These officials say Afghan security forces have made important gains in recent years, bolstering U.S. confidence.
Afghan forces "have made more progress than virtually anyone expected," a senior U.S. official said. "That's why we may not need as many troops as we might have thought we needed at one point."
Jeff Dressler, a researcher at the Institute for the Study of War, strongly disagreed with what he and other experts see as overly optimistic assessments of Afghan capabilities. "If you were to pull that assistance away, their capabilities shrink drastically," he said.
The new options represent a significant change in White House thinking, said NATO officials and other experts.
The Pentagon hasn't proposed an option for keeping zero troops in Afghanistan at the end of 2014 and doesn't expect Mr. Obama to choose that path. But zero is a real option for the president, some officials said, pointing to the course he took in Iraq in 2011 after negotiations with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki broke down over U.S. demands for immunity for any U.S. troops that would remain in that country.
Mr. Karzai has signaled that he would be willing to provide immunity to U.S. troops in Afghanistan if Mr. Obama provides him with guarantees that Washington will build up the Afghan military and take other steps to respect Afghan sovereignty, defense officials said.
Afghanistan on Friday released 80 prisoners formerly held by the U.S., the Associated Press reported, part of a 400-detainee release that an Afghan defense official described as a peace overture—though such moves could aggravate U.S. fears that Kabul is giving freedom to dangerous militants.
Pentagon spokesman George Little declined to comment on the troop-level recommendations. "The options are being discussed in confidential discussions," Mr. Little said. "This is obviously the president's decisionand his to make."
Once a decision is made on post-2014 troop levels, the Pentagon will recommend how quickly to draw down the 66,000 U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan. Gen. Allen favors a gradual withdrawal of troops tied to security benchmarks and other events, including the Afghan presidential election in 2014.
Defense officials said they expected the White House to ask commanders to cut the force to about 30,000 troops by the end of 2013—a level not seen since Mr. Obama came to office in 2009. Mr. Obama more than doubled troop levels before deciding to wind down the war.
The State Department still plans to maintain an embassy in Kabul and four consulates—in Herat, Jalalabad, Kandahar and Mazer-e-Sharif. But staffing levels may be dramatically reduced as a result of the scaled-back troop presence. —Dion Nissenbaum and Siobhan Gorman contributed to this article.
Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com and Julian E. Barnes atjulian.barnes@wsj.com
www.afghanistannewscenter.com