Tweet
Afghan cabinet gives preliminary approval to delayed mining law
KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's cabinet gave preliminary approval to a long-delayed package of laws to govern mining, which officials hope will become a key driver of the troubled country's economy, the government said on Saturday.
The news will be greeted with relief by Western donors, who committed to provide $4bn in aid from 2012 to 2015 based partly on projections of future mining earnings, only to see cabinet reject the legislation in July due to concern the laws failed to protect national interests from foreign exploitation.
The draft legislation is now almost ready to be put to parliament, a statement from the office of Administrative Affairs and Council of Ministers Secretariat said.
Cabinet should give full approval in a second meeting on Monday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai's office said.
The ability of Afghanistan - regularly cited as among the world's poorest and most corrupt countries - to create mining revenues over the next decade is considered key to its survival.
The Afghan government said last year that oil and mining could contribute up $1.5 billion in revenue by 2016, but delays to the legislation's passage and ongoing concerns about insecurity have cast a pall over expectations.
The U.S. and other foreign donors were caught by surprise when the draft legislation was rejected by cabinet ministers and other senior officials. Karzai appeared to support the decision at the time, calling for the laws to be reviewed to ensure they better protected "the national interests of Afghanistan."
The latest announcement will be greeted with relief by foreign mining companies seeking to invest in what the U.S. government has estimated as over US$1 trillion in untapped natural resources.
Government officials have previously said that once the package of laws is passed by cabinet, approval by parliament, which is due to return in the first week of March, could be reached within three to four weeks.
The laws aim to bring tender procedures into line with international norms and create regulations for employment, infrastructure and environmental protection, Afghan officials have previously told Reuters.
Afghanistan is believed to have rich deposits of gold, oil, copper, iron and other minerals and gemstones. A briefing paper released by the Pentagon in 2010 said the main resources were iron ore with an estimated value of $421 billion and copper deposits valued at $273 billion.
(Reporting by Mirwais Harooni; Writing by Dylan Welch; Editing by Jason Webb)
Pakistan to Seek Interpol Help in Extraditing Taliban Commander
VOA News February 23, 2013
ISLAMABAD — Pakistan says it will seek international help in extraditing a Pakistani Taliban commander held in Afghanistan. Pakistan's interior minister is appealing to the international police organization Interpol to ask Afghanistan to hand over senior Taliban commander Maulvi Faqir Mohammad, who was recently captured in Afghanistan. Faqir Mohammad was once the Pakistani Taliban's second in command.
Interior Minister Rehman Malik is reaching out to Interpol to help in the extradition of the Taliban commander, Maulvi Faqir Mohammad, captured earlier this week by Afghan security officials in eastern Afghanistan.
He says he is referring this matter to Interpol, so through Interpol we can convince Afghanistan that Faqir has the blood of so many Pakistanis on his hands and he is involved in a number of crimes, to deport him, as he should be tried in Pakistan under local laws.
The Afghan government, so far, has declined to hand over the militant leader.
Faqir Mohammad in 2010 was the second in command of Pakistan's Taliban, and is believed to be behind a number of deadly attacks in Pakistan. He reportedly fell out of favor within the militant network when he suggested talks with the government, and took refuge in neighboring Afghanistan.
But the Pakistani Taliban recently has offered to sit down with the government to discuss an end to the violence that has afflicted the country for almost a decade.
Islamabad government officials have yet to accept, or reject, the Tehrik-e-Taliban's offer of peace talks.
Malik says the Taliban first should prove its desire for peace by laying down its weapons.
"The Taliban will have to demonstrate how serious it is about these talks, such as announcing a negotiating team. It would be good if they denounce terrorism. If [leaders] Hakimullah Mehsud and Waliur Rehman surrender, we will give them amnesty according to law," he said.
Repeated military operations have failed to completely uproot the militants from their bases in tribal areas along the Afghan border.
Security analyst Ayesha Siddiqa says Pakistan's insistence that Afghanistan hand over Faqir Mohammad could have more to do with trying to bring more radical members of the Taliban to the table.
"He was one of those bad Taliban who had apparently turned mild or favorable toward the Pakistani state. Now, if you are asking for him from the Afghan government, it's either you are building his credibility or need him to talk to the other bad Taliban, and is therefore critical," he said.
Interior minister Malik's high profile push for the Taliban commander comes as the government is about to face national elections.
Opposition parties have put pressure on the government to consider the Taliban outreach. Past peace deals with Taliban factions drew international criticism for eroding rights in Taliban-held areas and not delivering sustainable peace.
US denies German claim over US troops in Afghanistan
BBC News 22 February 2013
The US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has denied German claims that he confirmed the number of US troops in Afghanistan after Nato's exit in 2014.
Germany's Defence Minister said earlier Mr Panetta had told Nato allies in Brussels that 8,000 to 12,000 US troops would stay put.
Mr Panetta said "several figures were discussed" but no specific numbers had been committed.
Most international troops are due to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
In December 2012 there were about 102,000 Nato troops serving in Afghanistan from 50 contributing nations, according to the International Security and Assistance Force.
Of these the bulk - about 66,000 - are US troops. 'Inaccurate'
German Defence Minister Thomas de Maiziere told reporters on Friday that Mr Panetta had confirmed the numbers during a Nato meeting in Brussels.
The two-day conference was aimed at discussing military capabilities and defence investment.
"The American defence secretary announced that the United States will be in a magnitude of 8,000 to 12,000 troops involved in Afghanistan" after 2014, Mr de Maiziere said.
Mr Panetta said the claim was "inaccurate".
"We did discuss a range of options that would be directed to the NATO force overall, which includes both the US force contribution, plus what other NATO countries would contribute as well," he said at a news conference.
Although 8,000 to 12,000 troops had been mentioned among those figures, they referred to the total number of post-2014 Nato troops in Afghanistan, he explained.
"The President is still reviewing options and has not made a decision about the size of a possible US presence after 2014, Mr Panetta's department said in a statement.
"We will continue to discuss with Allies and the Afghans how we can best carry out two basic missions: targeting the remnants of al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and training and equipping Afghan forces."
The US defence secretary added that officials were planning to leave troops in all sectors of the country - north, south, east and west - as well as in the capital, Kabul.
Meanwhile Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said there had been steady progress in the handover of security responsibilities in Afghanistan to local forces, who are now leading 80 % of security operations.
Withdrawal Symptoms: NATO Struggles over Afghanistan's Future
Spiegel Online By Matthias Gebauer February 22, 2013
Brussels - NATO has long said it wouldn't abandon Afghanistan following the conclusion of combat operations at the end of 2014. But the alliance is having trouble agreeing on just what that means. Now, planning for the future training mission has run into trouble.
When NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen steps before the press at the alliance's headquarters in Brussels, he normally has good news. Phrases such as "on track" and "in time" have become indispensable elements of his press conferences.But this week, Ramussen was forced to strike a different tone when commenting on Afghanistan. At the two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers on Thursday and Friday, the alliance had hoped to agree on the training mission envisioned for the country once the multi-national International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) withdraws at the end of 2014. It was not to be, though. Instead, Rasmussen was forced to admit that "we still have some time to go."
"We are in the process of planning and I would expect final decisions on the size and scope of the future NATO-led training mission to be taken within the coming months," he added.
The delay reflects difficult behind-the-scenes discussions relating to the post-2014 training mission in Afghanistan. At the NATO summit in Chicago last May, alliance leaders pledged not to abandon Afghanistan following the withdrawal. Since then, however, the ongoing debate among alliance members as to just what that means has been intense.
The current concept calls for nations involved to contribute to a small force focused on training the fledgling Afghan military and security personnel. None of the participants want to see that mission mutate into a mini-version of the costly ISAF mission. Nor do they want to commit more trainers than absolutely necessary.
'Difficult Questions'
German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière offered a candid assessment prior to this week's meeting. Before planning for the mission can continue, he said, many "difficult questions" must be answered. That, he added, is why the "first operation plans that had been prepared" were frozen. De Maizière said that policymakers must first reach agreement on the goals before military leaders can begin to develop concrete plans.
It is an unwelcome delay. While it may seem as though there is plenty of time before the post-2014 mission begins, military planners would prefer to have more than the 20 months now remaining.
Much of the tension is the result of the United States' intention to keep its own participation as limited as possible. SPIEGEL ONLINE learned this week that Douglas Lute, special assistant to the US president on Pakistan and Afghanistan, gave a confidential briefing in Brussels earlier this month in which he outlined Washington's vision for its post-2014 involvement in Afghanistan. He made clear that the American force would be a maximum of 10,000 troops, only half of which would be earmarked for the training mission. The other half is to focus on counter-terrorism operations. Additionly, Lute indicated that the US would no longer support the international mission with Medevac helicopters, presenting a difficult challenge to Germany and other NATO allies.
No one in Brussels was willing to comment on the Lute briefing at the foreign ministers' meeting this week. But its content was foremost in their minds. A contingent of just 5,000 US troops for the training mission means that other NATO members will have to make greater contributions than anticipated to achieve the targeted mission size of between 10,000 and 15,000 troops. That could put Berlin in a bind, given that Chancellor Angela Merkel's government has been promising a withdrawal from Afghanistan for years.
In his confidential presentation, Lute also noted that Washington had concrete expectations of Berlin. While the post-2014 training mission, known as "Resolute Support," is to be coordinated from Kabul, each quadrant of the country is to have its own independent training center. The US hopes that Germany will take on the camp in northern Afghanistan, Lute said. Under ISAF, Germany has been in charge of Regional Command North and currently has 4,400 troops stationed there.
Boosting the Afghan Army
Such details were likely not up for debate in Brussels this week. The alliance is set to focus on Afghanistan during meetings on Friday, to be sure. But because the appointment of incoming Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has not yet been confirmed by the Senate, his predecessor Leon Panetta flew to Brussels instead. When it comes to planning for an Afghanistan mission that will start almost two months after he steps down, it seems likely that Panetta will practice diplomatic reserve.
A further US announcement caused additional confusion on Thursday, one which could impact the planning and budget for the future training mission. Thus far, the alliance had envisioned a post-2014 Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) of 280,000 troops -- and has worked hard toward meeting that number in recent years.
This week, however, a US official announced in Brussels that Washington now aims for a force of 350,000 soldiers. The boost likely means that the planned budget of $4 billion per year will have to be increased. Given the difficult negotiations that preceded previous budget talks, combined with falling defense spending across the alliance, such an increase could present challenges. On Thursday evening, NATO head Rasmussen merely said he was "confident that we will be able to finance Afghan security forces of that size."
Given the difficult questions facing the alliance, NATO is considering calling an Afghanistan summit this summer to coincide with US President Barack Obama's trip to Europe.
But one decision was made this week. With the current ISAF commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, having withdrawn his name from consideration for the post of NATO's supreme commander, US General Phil Breedlove has been tapped for the position. Obama must first signal his agreement, though.
To invite Taliban or not casts doubts on holding scholars' confab in Kabul
By Muhammad Tahir
ISLAMABAD, Feb. 23 (Xinhua) -- Pakistan and Afghanistan had agreed to hold a conference of the religious scholars in Kabul in March to forge a united front in the fight against attacks on civilians but a controversy on whether to invite or not the Taliban has now cast doubts over its fate.
Pakistani clerics said that a joint organizing committee had agreed in its meeting in Islamabad on Feb. 12 to extend invitation to the Afghan Taliban but a member of the Afghan delegation rejected the idea in remarks he made in his return to Kabul.
Chairman of the Pakistani Scholars Council, Allama Tahir Ashrafi,said that anti-Taliban statement by member of the Afghan clerics council, Aminullah Muzaffary, and his claim that Taliban will not be invited, is violation of the understanding reached in the Islamabad's meeting.
Ashrafi said in Islamabad on Saturday that Pakistani clerics have now decided not to attend the joint conference in Kabul next month as they have strong apprehensions that the forum could be used against the Taliban.
"The anti-Taliban statement by the Afghan member has forced us to boycott the Kabul conference," Ashrafi said. He asked the Afghan scholars to come up with a new agenda that should also focus on the elusive peace process in the war-torn Afghanistan.
Another Pakistani religious scholar and member of the organizing committee, Mufti Abu Hurraira Mohiuddin, said that another group of Pakistani scholars has also sought clarification from the Afghan side about the reported anti-Taliban remarks by an Afghan member.
Mufti Mohiuddin, head of the "Saut-ul-Islam" or Voice of Islam group, said in Karachi that the organizing committee had decided that the Kabul conference will neither be used against nor in favor of any group or individual.
Maulvi Shehzada Shehzad, the spokesman for the Afghan clerics' council, however disputed claims by Pakistani religious leaders and said that Afghan council has formally invited the Taliban, asking the Pakistani scholars to withdraw their boycott decision.
Maulvi Shehzad said in Kabul that Afghan side is committed to respect the decisions taken in the joint organizing committee's meeting in Islamabad on Feb. 12.
Organizing committees of the two countries had previously agreed in their talks in Islamabad that 500 scholars, 250 from each country,will attend the March meeting and that the conference will not be used to support or attack any group.
The Afghan government, which had first proposed the Pak-Afghan religious scholars conference in November, is now struggling to persuade the Pakistani clerics to attend the meeting in Kabul to discuss a joint stand against the attacks on civilians and come up with a united approach against suicide bombings.
The Karzai government has pinned high hopes on the proposed conference as it wants religious backing for a nascent peace process in the war-torn country.
The Afghan government has also planned to hold an international conference of religious scholars after the Pak-Afghan meet, however,it seems that serious differences over the Taliban invitation and the apprehensions by Pakistani scholars that the forum could be used against the Taliban, have now cast doubts over the holding of the Kabul conference.
Despite demands by Pakistani religious leaders to invite the Taliban to the conference, a spokesman of the Afghan Taliban has already rejected the conference branding it as a "conspiracy" by the United States and Western nations against them. The Taliban has urged the Pakistani scholars to boycott the Kabul conference.
Some analysts are of the view that the Taliban appeal has convinced the Pakistani scholars to stay away from the conference.
The Pakistani government had, on three occasions, officially promised to help in organizing the conference as it is also facing the challenge of violent extremism and the most serious suicide attacks that have already killed innocent people.
The Afghan government is likely to ask Pakistan to convince its religious scholars to review their decision to boycott the conference.
NATO in Talks on Scale of Afghan Role After 2014 Deadline
New York Times By THOM SHANKER February 22, 2013
BRUSSELS - NATO defense ministers meeting here on Friday said they had made progress toward planning a military assistance mission in Afghanistan after the alliance’s combat role expires at the end of 2014, with some partner nations already offering to participate.
A draft proposal discussed here for possible NATO operations in Afghanistan after 2014 envisions a force of up to 9,500 American troops and up to 6,000 more from other coalition nations, according to alliance officials, who stressed that no final decisions had been made. Other NATO officials said the combined American and allied force would be smaller, falling in a range of 8,000 to 12,000 troops.
George Little, the Pentagon spokesman, said reports that the United States had told its allies it was considering 8,000 to 12,000 of its own troops were wrong. “A range of 8-12,000 troops was discussed as the possible size of the overall NATO mission, not the U.S. contribution,” Mr. Little said. “The president is still reviewing options and has not made a decision about the size of a possible U.S. presence after 2014.”
In official comments, NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the session included serious discussion on “preparing a new and different NATO-led mission after 2014 to train, advise and assist Afghan Security Forces.”
Mr. Rasmussen added that “many partners have already offered to join us and are working with us to plan the new mission,” but he provided no details.
Officials stressed that troop numbers remain for planning only, and that any enduring NATO military presence in Afghanistan would be possible only through successful negotiations with the Afghan government and contributor nations. That presence would focus on supporting and training Afghan Army and national police forces, as well as on a narrower counterterrorism mission specifically hunting for high-value adversary leaders.
The draft was described by several NATO officials on standard diplomatic rules of anonymity that prohibit identifying them by name or nationality.
But, speaking in broad terms, Mr. Rasmussen made note that a number of nations in the coalition had already pledged to participate in the post-2014 mission.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, attending his final NATO session before retiring from public service, said that he and other defense ministers “did discuss a range of options.” He said that no firm or final numbers existed for the American or coalition contributions, but that the alliance was firm in its commitment to Afghanistan’s long-term stability.
The draft concept for post-2014 Afghanistan envisions a presence of foreign forces operating out of a central headquarters in Kabul but linked to training bases in four sections of the country.
Conventional troops acting as advisers would not be present at the division, brigade or battalion level, but would mentor Afghan security forces at the level of the corps headquarters. Mentoring of Afghan troops at the level of smaller, tactical units in the field would be carried out by Special Operations forces, according to current planning concepts.
The United States currently has about 66,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan. NATO and other coalition nations have about 37,000 troops. President Obama has announced that 34,000 United States troops will be removed by February 2014.
Afghans Protest Iran Executions
By RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan February 23, 2013
Hundreds of people have attended the funerals of 10 men in Takhar Province, in Afghanistan's northeast, who were recently hanged in Iran reportedly on charges of drug smuggling.
RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan reporter in Takhar says the mourners in Kalafgan district of the province marched in protest at the executions, calling on the Afghan government and the United Nations to stop the executions.
Residents of Kalafgan district say they have buried the bodies of 80 people in the last six months who have been executed in Iran.
In recent years, Kabul says many Afghans have been sentenced to death in Iran on drug smuggling charges.
As Obama winds down Afghan war, what’s next for Gitmo?
Obama vowed and failed to transfer Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Now with war supposedly over, legal experts say, Washington loses basis for keeping them there.
Global Post By Jennifer Koons February 22, 2013
WASHINGTON, DC - Shaker Aamer has spent more than a decade imprisoned without charges.
Captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and brought to Guantanamo Bay in 2002, the British resident has come to epitomize for many critics the legal limbo and frustrations of the United States' controversial detainment camp.
Cleared for release by George W. Bush’s administration in 2007 and again by Barack Obama’s in 2009, the now 45-year-old Saudi Arabian-born Aamer nonetheless remains in captivity. Critics say that’s thanks to congressional obstruction and an administration reluctant to sacrifice political capital.
But Obama says America's war in Afghanistan is ending, shifting the fight against Al Qaeda beyond the traditional battlefield. That raises new questions about a gamut of controversial actions Washington commits in the war’s name — from drone bombings to locking up terror suspects, like Aamer, indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay.
"Not just for the Obama administration but Bush as well, the state of war has provided legal cover to do a lot of things, including indefinite detention," said retired Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor for the US Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay.
"Whenever a 'state of war' ends, the legal justification has to end as well. It's either going to require the creation of a new justification or for the administration to take some different actions."
During last week’s State of the Union speech, Obama declared: "After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home."
The president went on to signal a shift in the larger war on terror against an enemy that’s now "a shadow of its former self," but that is cast across broad swathes of land.
"Different Al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged — from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving. But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations," the president said.
"Instead, we will need to help countries like Yemen, Libya and Somalia provide for their own security, and help allies who take the fight to terrorists, as we have in Mali. And, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans."
But legal experts believe this new phase of war should require a new legal framework.
"Congress has authorized a limited conflict against those responsible for 9/11 and those that aided or harbored them," said David Glazier, an international law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "This should be Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban; it is not a blank check for the president to continually add other 'associated forces' to the mix to prolong the conflict."
Many experts like Glazier question the ongoing applicability of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was enacted a week after 9/11 and has served as the primary legal basis for the US military's response to the attacks.
According to the resolution, the AUMF authorizes the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
But does the end of combat operations in Afghanistan and a weakened terrorist network blunt that authority?
"In past wars, Congress specifically expanded statutory authority to include additional groups within the scope of hostilities — it thus declared war five separate times in WWII, for example, against Japan, Germany, Italy, Romania and Bulgaria. No one seemed to think that the president could simply include other enemies within the existing conflict just because they were allied with current foes," Glazier said.
"So I think the first question becomes one of US domestic law — are we still in fact engaged in an ongoing conflict against an adversary that Congress has authorized hostilities against?"
So far, the Obama administration has cited the AUMF as justification for strikes against alleged terrorists in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere in North Africa. Although, the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, remains unclear.
Even Chuck Hagel, Obama’s pick for defense secretary, has raised doubts.
"My understanding is that at this time, there is no credible evidence that AQIM is a direct threat to the US homeland,” Hagel said at his Senate confirmation hearing.
In 2004, a plurality of the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that enemy combatants — both in the United States and at Guantanamo Bay — must be given the ability to challenge their detention. So far, however, the court has declined to address the length of detention issue, which analysts say suggests it’s a political question that can only be resolved by Congress and the president.
"The Hamdi decision implied that US detention authority would persist as long as there was active combat in Afghanistan, but doesn't conclusively say that it must end at that point," Glazier said.
The ambiguity will almost certainly spark fresh legal challenges.
"The end of combat operations will give strong legal arguments that the authority to hold people also ends," said Thomas Wilner, a partner with Shearman & Sterling who represented Guantanamo detainees in the Rasul v. Bush and Boumediene v. Bush cases before the high court.
What is less ambiguous, at least according to legal scholars, is what should happen to those members of the Taliban detained by the United States.
"Any authority to detain Taliban personnel, other than those actually facing US criminal charges, absolutely ends with the end of a US combat role," Glazier said.
But legal imperatives and political reality rarely track.
"It will require the end of the war against terrorism. And, as Colin Powell has pointed out, the US has created a 'military-industrial-terrorism complex,'" said retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Powell. "It will be very difficult to put that creation back in its cage."
Last week, Obama announced plans to halve the number of US soldiers deployed in Afghanistan over the year, part of Washington's goal to pull out almost all its troops by the end of 2014. The drawdown will occur in the shadow of the 2014 midterm elections, which could undermine what little interest exists to take action on a case that offers no political payoff.
"Soon you're going to have lawmakers, particularly on the House side where the more hard-core conservatives tend to be located — who will be coming up on re-election or someone will be trying to unseat them," Davis said. "No one is going to win saying 'I got the detainees out of Guantanamo,' so there's no incentive politically to do that."
More than 150 detainees remain in Guantanamo. Eighty-six have been cleared for transfer or release, and 46 are being held indefinitely. The military is currently prosecuting seven detainees before military commissions and plans to prosecute 24 others. Three detainees are serving sentences.
Obama has taken criticism for failing to fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo. The White House has said it’s not for a lack of trying.
Congress has continually blocked the release of the detainees approved for transfer or release, passing legislation preventing federal money from being used to bring prisoners to the United States.
"Congress has put the administration in a box canyon. It lacks the freedom of movement that it needs to get rid of the long-term detainees," said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School. "Congress has rendered it impossible to do anything with them."
"The drawdown of our personnel in Afghanistan is not going to change that unless Congress changes that or the president violates the legislative framework or the Supreme Court of the United States does something to break the gridlock," Fidell added.
In January, the president signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which mandates military custody for Al Qaeda-linked terror suspects, despite threatening to veto it over that and other provisions related to the prison camp.
Obama has blamed the legislative branch for preventing him from closing Guantanamo.
"There are some things that we haven't gotten done. I still want to close Guantanamo, we haven't been able to get that through Congress," Obama said during an appearance on Comedy Central's "Daily Show" with host Jon Stewart in October.
But critics say the president's continuing failure to take the lead is to blame.
"I have not seen in him a willingness to make this an issue that he's going to sell in the local elections," said Wilner, of Shearman & Sterling. "I think he truly feels Guantanamo is a joke and that it's a bad thing for the US, but he's unwilling to put prestige behind it. And there's always something more important. I think somebody needs to push him on that. Hopefully as his legacy becomes more important to him, he'll do it."
Signaling a possible move in that direction was an administration-approved speech by Jeh Johnson, former general counsel for the Defense Department, in the fall.
“In its 12th year, we must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the ‘new normal,’” Johnson said in a speech at the Oxford Union in November.
"I do believe that on the present course, there will come a tipping point — a tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda and its affiliates have been killed or captured, and the group is no longer able to attempt or launch a strategic attack against the United States, such that Al Qaeda as we know it, the organization that our Congress authorized the military to pursue in 2001, has been effectively destroyed."
Only Afghan parliament can decide on US troops immunity
By Sayed Jawad - 23 Feb 2013, 9:06 pm Khaama Press
Leader of the National Front — main political opposition coalition of the Afghan government opposed with the grand assembly (Loya Jirga) to discuss US troops immunity in Afghanistan.
Ahmad Zia on Saturday said organizing grand assembly to decide over US troops immunity in the presence of Afghan parliament is against the Afghan constitution.
However Afghan president Hamid Karzai said US troops immunity will be decided by Afghan tribal elders during a national grand assembly.
Karzai said, a decision on immunity for U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan after the 2014 planned withdrawal will be made by the end of the year.
The Afghan government rejected an initial U.S. proposal regarding the question of immunity and a second round of negotiations will take place this year in Kabul, he said.
This comes as the U.S. and its NATO allies revealed Friday they may keep as many as 12,000 troops in Afghanistan after the combat mission ends next year, largely American forces tasked with hunting down remnants of al-Qaida and helping Afghan forces with their own security.
However the Obama administration has not said how many troops or diplomats it intends to keep in Afghanistan after 2014; it is in the early stages of negotiating a bilateral security agreement with Kabul that would set the legal parameters.
There currently are 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, down from a 2010 peak of 100,000.
NATO Chief Says No Decision On Afghan, Foreign Forces
RFE/RL February 22, 2013
BRUSSELS - NATO says no decision has been made so far on the future size of the domestic and foreign forces in Afghanistan after the alliance's withdrawal in 2014.
Speaking at the end of a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Afghan forces kept growing in numbers and quality, but the final size was an issue to be solved at some point in the future.
"Let me stress two points: Firstly, no concrete decision has been made as regards the future size of the Afghan security forces, and secondly, there have been no new requests as regards funding," he said.
"This is an issue that will be solved down the road. "
Rasmussen spoke in response to media reports on February 21 that quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying that NATO wanted Afghan forces at a peak level of 352,000 until 2018 -- a move that could cost NATO billions more.
The secretary-general reiterated that NATO's training mission after 2014 will be much smaller, without giving numbers.
"Today we have reinforced our commitment on the way forward for our new mission to train, advise, and assist the Afghan security forces after 2014," he said. "This will be a different mission from ISAF and will be significantly smaller in size."
Up To 12,000 Foreign Troops
The United States says the alliance has been discussing keeping a NATO force of 8,000-12,000 in Afghanistan, in a first indication of the possible size of the international presence in the country after 2014.
Pentagon spokesman George Little told reporters in Brussels, "A range of 8,000-12,000 troops was discussed as the possible size of the overall NATO mission, not the U.S. contribution."
Little was responding to a statement attributed to German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere that the U.S. contribution alone would amount to up to 12,000 troops.
Little added that U.S. President Barack Obama had not decided how many U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan after 2014.
Outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the force would be a combined NATO contingent, and would not consist of U.S. troops only.
Panetta told reporters that the post-2014 international force will have a presence across the country.
"Today we asked NATO to begin planning for a range of options on the post-2014 posture that would provide for a effective regional presence not only in Kabul but at fixed sites in the north, the south, the east, and the west," Panetta said.
Panetta also detailed the U.S. troop withdrawal program.
He said the current contingent of just over 60,000 troops will be largely maintained during the upcoming Afghan fighting season and then reduced to about 50,000 by November, and 32,000 by February 2014.
Obama last month announced that 34,000 soldiers would be brought home within 12 months.
With reporting by AP, Reuters, dpa, and AFP
Roadside bomb wounds 3 police in northern Afghan town
KUNDUZ, Afghanistan, Feb. 23 (Xinhua) -- A roadside bomb struck police van in Kunduz province 250 km north of Kabul on Saturday, wounding three police personnel, provincial police chief Mohammad Khalil Andarabai said.
"A mine planted by anti-government militants struck a police vehicle at around 01:30 p.m. today injuring three policemen," Andarabi said to Xinhua.
The incident, he added took place on the road leading to Shir Khan Bandar border town.
Meantime, Zabihullah Mujahid who claims to speak for the Taliban outfit in talks with media via telephone from unknown location claimed of responsibility, saying eight police were killed in the blast, a claim rejected by the police official as groundless.
Talk of peace between Pakistani government, Taliban angers victims of violence
Associated Press Saturday, February 23, 2013
PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Hazratullah Khan, who lost his right leg below the knee in a car bombing, answers immediately when asked whether the Pakistani government should hold peace talks with Taliban leaders responsible for attacks like the one that maimed him.
“Hang them alive,” said the 14-year-old, who survived the explosion on his way home from school. “Slice the flesh off their bodies and cut them into pieces. That’s what they have been doing to us.”
Khan, who is from the Khyber tribal region, pondered his future recently at a physical rehabilitation center in Peshawar.
“What was my crime that they made me disabled for the rest of my life?” he asked as he touched his severed limb.
In recent weeks, the Pakistani government and Taliban forces fighting in northwestern tribal areas have expressed an interest in peace talks to end the years-long conflict. An estimated 30,000 civilians and 4,000 soldiers have died in terrorist attacks in Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001 — many at the hands of the Pakistani Taliban.
To many victims of Taliban violence, the idea of negotiating with people responsible for so much human pain is abhorrent. Their voices, however, are rarely heard in Pakistan, a country where people have long been conflicted about whether the Taliban are enemies bent on destroying the state or fellow Muslims who should be welcomed back into the fold after years of fighting.
The Associated Press spoke with victims of terrorist attacks in Peshawar, Lahore, Karachi, Quetta and the tribal areas and their families to find out how they felt about negotiating peace with the Taliban.
Khan’s classmate, Fatimeen Afridi, who was also injured in the same bombing in Khyber, said he would be happy to see negotiations with the militants — but only after those who maimed him were punished. Afridi’s left leg was amputated below the knee, shattering his dream of becoming a fast bowler on Pakistan’s cricket team.
“If I find them, I will throw them in a burning clay oven,” he said.
The push for peace talks gained momentum in December when the leader of the Pakistani Taliban offered to negotiate. The government responded positively, and even hinted that the militants would not need to lay down their weapons before talks could begin. That would be a reversal of the government’s long-held position that any talks be preceded by a ceasefire.
So far, there have been few concrete developments, and it’s unclear whether Pakistan’s powerful military supports negotiations.
Skeptics doubt the militants truly want peace and point to past agreements with the Taliban that fell apart after giving militants time to regroup. Others say negotiations are the only option since numerous military operations against the Taliban have failed.
The biggest question — especially for many of the Taliban’s victims — is whether the Taliban will have to pay any price for the people they are believed to have killed and wounded. The government hasn’t said whether it would offer the Taliban amnesty for past offenses.
Many of the victims feel forgotten, saying no one has asked their opinion about holding peace talks. They have to fight for what little health care they can obtain, and there’s almost no assistance for dealing with psychological trauma caused by the attacks.
Dr. Mahboob-ur-Rehman runs a private medical complex in Peshawar, a large facility that houses a prosthetic workshop and a therapy school, where both Khan and Afridi are being treated. Rehman said the Pakistani army has a state-of-the-art facility to treat its soldiers while there is little help for civilians. He estimated that roughly 10,000 civilians have been permanently disabled after losing limbs in Pakistani Taliban attacks.
In the southern city of Karachi, 12-year-old Mehzar Fatima was shot in the back when a gunman killed her father, a Shiite Muslim. The sectarian groups often accused of carrying out such attacks are closely aligned with the Pakistani Taliban. The gunshot left her unable to move her legs and feet and she fears she might never use them again.
Her mother, Kishwar Fatima, said she’s being pressured to leave the hospital where the girl is being treated because there’s no government assistance to help pay her bills.
Those wounded in the violence feel further victimized because many Pakistanis don’t even agree on who is to blame for their suffering.
Despite the huge loss of life and property, the views of many Pakistanis are influenced by right-wing, anti-American propaganda that spawns conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks. Fellow Muslims could never commit acts of violence against their own people, they say, so someone else must be to blame. Some theories suggest U.S. and Indian intelligence agencies support the Taliban and other militant groups to destabilize Pakistan.
Some people who support the militants think the Taliban are better than many of Pakistan’s corrupt politicians who have failed to deliver good governance. Many Pakistanis also say the militant problems in the tribal areas are a result of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and when the U.S. leaves, the Pakistani Taliban will also stop fighting.
Even some of the victims aren’t sure who is to blame.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for a Feb. 2 suicide attack that killed 23 people in the northwestern city of Lakki Marwat. But Mohammad Shafi, whose 24-year-old son was among nine soldiers killed in the explosion, isn’t convinced the attackers were members of the Taliban. He says Muslims would never hurt a fellow Muslim.
Instead, Shafi thinks his son — a boxer who never lost a fight before he was shot seven times during the attack on an army post — was killed by Hindu agents that archrival India sent, with U.S. assistance, to destabilize Pakistan. He said Pakistan should sever ties with the U.S. to abolish terrorism.
“If my son was killed by infidels, he has been martyred and will go to heaven,” he said.
Confusion over who is responsible for the deadly violence also has some victims wondering if the Pakistani government makes peace with the Taliban, will it also make peace with other militant groups.
Will the government, for instance, hold talks with Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a group linked to al-Qaida that is accused of killing more than 175 Shiite Muslims during the past two months in the southwestern city of Quetta?
Ghazanfar Ali lost his 24-year-old son in one of these attacks on Jan. 10 in Quetta. Another of his sons survived the same attack after three major surgeries.
Ali broke down in tears as he recalled sifting through rubble and identifying his son’s body by the ring he had on his finger because his head and face were wounded beyond recognition.
“There can’t be peace with the Taliban,” he said. “They slaughter a son in front of his father and then chant ‘God is great!’”
__
Associated Press writers Riaz Khan and Rasool Dawar in Peshawar; Zaheer Babar in Lahore; Abdul Sattar in Quetta; and Adil Jawad in Karachi, Pakistan contributed to this report.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com
KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's cabinet gave preliminary approval to a long-delayed package of laws to govern mining, which officials hope will become a key driver of the troubled country's economy, the government said on Saturday.
The news will be greeted with relief by Western donors, who committed to provide $4bn in aid from 2012 to 2015 based partly on projections of future mining earnings, only to see cabinet reject the legislation in July due to concern the laws failed to protect national interests from foreign exploitation.
The draft legislation is now almost ready to be put to parliament, a statement from the office of Administrative Affairs and Council of Ministers Secretariat said.
Cabinet should give full approval in a second meeting on Monday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai's office said.
The ability of Afghanistan - regularly cited as among the world's poorest and most corrupt countries - to create mining revenues over the next decade is considered key to its survival.
The Afghan government said last year that oil and mining could contribute up $1.5 billion in revenue by 2016, but delays to the legislation's passage and ongoing concerns about insecurity have cast a pall over expectations.
The U.S. and other foreign donors were caught by surprise when the draft legislation was rejected by cabinet ministers and other senior officials. Karzai appeared to support the decision at the time, calling for the laws to be reviewed to ensure they better protected "the national interests of Afghanistan."
The latest announcement will be greeted with relief by foreign mining companies seeking to invest in what the U.S. government has estimated as over US$1 trillion in untapped natural resources.
Government officials have previously said that once the package of laws is passed by cabinet, approval by parliament, which is due to return in the first week of March, could be reached within three to four weeks.
The laws aim to bring tender procedures into line with international norms and create regulations for employment, infrastructure and environmental protection, Afghan officials have previously told Reuters.
Afghanistan is believed to have rich deposits of gold, oil, copper, iron and other minerals and gemstones. A briefing paper released by the Pentagon in 2010 said the main resources were iron ore with an estimated value of $421 billion and copper deposits valued at $273 billion.
(Reporting by Mirwais Harooni; Writing by Dylan Welch; Editing by Jason Webb)
Pakistan to Seek Interpol Help in Extraditing Taliban Commander
VOA News February 23, 2013
ISLAMABAD — Pakistan says it will seek international help in extraditing a Pakistani Taliban commander held in Afghanistan. Pakistan's interior minister is appealing to the international police organization Interpol to ask Afghanistan to hand over senior Taliban commander Maulvi Faqir Mohammad, who was recently captured in Afghanistan. Faqir Mohammad was once the Pakistani Taliban's second in command.
Interior Minister Rehman Malik is reaching out to Interpol to help in the extradition of the Taliban commander, Maulvi Faqir Mohammad, captured earlier this week by Afghan security officials in eastern Afghanistan.
He says he is referring this matter to Interpol, so through Interpol we can convince Afghanistan that Faqir has the blood of so many Pakistanis on his hands and he is involved in a number of crimes, to deport him, as he should be tried in Pakistan under local laws.
The Afghan government, so far, has declined to hand over the militant leader.
Faqir Mohammad in 2010 was the second in command of Pakistan's Taliban, and is believed to be behind a number of deadly attacks in Pakistan. He reportedly fell out of favor within the militant network when he suggested talks with the government, and took refuge in neighboring Afghanistan.
But the Pakistani Taliban recently has offered to sit down with the government to discuss an end to the violence that has afflicted the country for almost a decade.
Islamabad government officials have yet to accept, or reject, the Tehrik-e-Taliban's offer of peace talks.
Malik says the Taliban first should prove its desire for peace by laying down its weapons.
"The Taliban will have to demonstrate how serious it is about these talks, such as announcing a negotiating team. It would be good if they denounce terrorism. If [leaders] Hakimullah Mehsud and Waliur Rehman surrender, we will give them amnesty according to law," he said.
Repeated military operations have failed to completely uproot the militants from their bases in tribal areas along the Afghan border.
Security analyst Ayesha Siddiqa says Pakistan's insistence that Afghanistan hand over Faqir Mohammad could have more to do with trying to bring more radical members of the Taliban to the table.
"He was one of those bad Taliban who had apparently turned mild or favorable toward the Pakistani state. Now, if you are asking for him from the Afghan government, it's either you are building his credibility or need him to talk to the other bad Taliban, and is therefore critical," he said.
Interior minister Malik's high profile push for the Taliban commander comes as the government is about to face national elections.
Opposition parties have put pressure on the government to consider the Taliban outreach. Past peace deals with Taliban factions drew international criticism for eroding rights in Taliban-held areas and not delivering sustainable peace.
US denies German claim over US troops in Afghanistan
BBC News 22 February 2013
The US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has denied German claims that he confirmed the number of US troops in Afghanistan after Nato's exit in 2014.
Germany's Defence Minister said earlier Mr Panetta had told Nato allies in Brussels that 8,000 to 12,000 US troops would stay put.
Mr Panetta said "several figures were discussed" but no specific numbers had been committed.
Most international troops are due to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
In December 2012 there were about 102,000 Nato troops serving in Afghanistan from 50 contributing nations, according to the International Security and Assistance Force.
Of these the bulk - about 66,000 - are US troops. 'Inaccurate'
German Defence Minister Thomas de Maiziere told reporters on Friday that Mr Panetta had confirmed the numbers during a Nato meeting in Brussels.
The two-day conference was aimed at discussing military capabilities and defence investment.
"The American defence secretary announced that the United States will be in a magnitude of 8,000 to 12,000 troops involved in Afghanistan" after 2014, Mr de Maiziere said.
Mr Panetta said the claim was "inaccurate".
"We did discuss a range of options that would be directed to the NATO force overall, which includes both the US force contribution, plus what other NATO countries would contribute as well," he said at a news conference.
Although 8,000 to 12,000 troops had been mentioned among those figures, they referred to the total number of post-2014 Nato troops in Afghanistan, he explained.
"The President is still reviewing options and has not made a decision about the size of a possible US presence after 2014, Mr Panetta's department said in a statement.
"We will continue to discuss with Allies and the Afghans how we can best carry out two basic missions: targeting the remnants of al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and training and equipping Afghan forces."
The US defence secretary added that officials were planning to leave troops in all sectors of the country - north, south, east and west - as well as in the capital, Kabul.
Meanwhile Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said there had been steady progress in the handover of security responsibilities in Afghanistan to local forces, who are now leading 80 % of security operations.
Withdrawal Symptoms: NATO Struggles over Afghanistan's Future
Spiegel Online By Matthias Gebauer February 22, 2013
Brussels - NATO has long said it wouldn't abandon Afghanistan following the conclusion of combat operations at the end of 2014. But the alliance is having trouble agreeing on just what that means. Now, planning for the future training mission has run into trouble.
When NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen steps before the press at the alliance's headquarters in Brussels, he normally has good news. Phrases such as "on track" and "in time" have become indispensable elements of his press conferences.But this week, Ramussen was forced to strike a different tone when commenting on Afghanistan. At the two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers on Thursday and Friday, the alliance had hoped to agree on the training mission envisioned for the country once the multi-national International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) withdraws at the end of 2014. It was not to be, though. Instead, Rasmussen was forced to admit that "we still have some time to go."
"We are in the process of planning and I would expect final decisions on the size and scope of the future NATO-led training mission to be taken within the coming months," he added.
The delay reflects difficult behind-the-scenes discussions relating to the post-2014 training mission in Afghanistan. At the NATO summit in Chicago last May, alliance leaders pledged not to abandon Afghanistan following the withdrawal. Since then, however, the ongoing debate among alliance members as to just what that means has been intense.
The current concept calls for nations involved to contribute to a small force focused on training the fledgling Afghan military and security personnel. None of the participants want to see that mission mutate into a mini-version of the costly ISAF mission. Nor do they want to commit more trainers than absolutely necessary.
'Difficult Questions'
German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière offered a candid assessment prior to this week's meeting. Before planning for the mission can continue, he said, many "difficult questions" must be answered. That, he added, is why the "first operation plans that had been prepared" were frozen. De Maizière said that policymakers must first reach agreement on the goals before military leaders can begin to develop concrete plans.
It is an unwelcome delay. While it may seem as though there is plenty of time before the post-2014 mission begins, military planners would prefer to have more than the 20 months now remaining.
Much of the tension is the result of the United States' intention to keep its own participation as limited as possible. SPIEGEL ONLINE learned this week that Douglas Lute, special assistant to the US president on Pakistan and Afghanistan, gave a confidential briefing in Brussels earlier this month in which he outlined Washington's vision for its post-2014 involvement in Afghanistan. He made clear that the American force would be a maximum of 10,000 troops, only half of which would be earmarked for the training mission. The other half is to focus on counter-terrorism operations. Additionly, Lute indicated that the US would no longer support the international mission with Medevac helicopters, presenting a difficult challenge to Germany and other NATO allies.
No one in Brussels was willing to comment on the Lute briefing at the foreign ministers' meeting this week. But its content was foremost in their minds. A contingent of just 5,000 US troops for the training mission means that other NATO members will have to make greater contributions than anticipated to achieve the targeted mission size of between 10,000 and 15,000 troops. That could put Berlin in a bind, given that Chancellor Angela Merkel's government has been promising a withdrawal from Afghanistan for years.
In his confidential presentation, Lute also noted that Washington had concrete expectations of Berlin. While the post-2014 training mission, known as "Resolute Support," is to be coordinated from Kabul, each quadrant of the country is to have its own independent training center. The US hopes that Germany will take on the camp in northern Afghanistan, Lute said. Under ISAF, Germany has been in charge of Regional Command North and currently has 4,400 troops stationed there.
Boosting the Afghan Army
Such details were likely not up for debate in Brussels this week. The alliance is set to focus on Afghanistan during meetings on Friday, to be sure. But because the appointment of incoming Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has not yet been confirmed by the Senate, his predecessor Leon Panetta flew to Brussels instead. When it comes to planning for an Afghanistan mission that will start almost two months after he steps down, it seems likely that Panetta will practice diplomatic reserve.
A further US announcement caused additional confusion on Thursday, one which could impact the planning and budget for the future training mission. Thus far, the alliance had envisioned a post-2014 Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) of 280,000 troops -- and has worked hard toward meeting that number in recent years.
This week, however, a US official announced in Brussels that Washington now aims for a force of 350,000 soldiers. The boost likely means that the planned budget of $4 billion per year will have to be increased. Given the difficult negotiations that preceded previous budget talks, combined with falling defense spending across the alliance, such an increase could present challenges. On Thursday evening, NATO head Rasmussen merely said he was "confident that we will be able to finance Afghan security forces of that size."
Given the difficult questions facing the alliance, NATO is considering calling an Afghanistan summit this summer to coincide with US President Barack Obama's trip to Europe.
But one decision was made this week. With the current ISAF commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, having withdrawn his name from consideration for the post of NATO's supreme commander, US General Phil Breedlove has been tapped for the position. Obama must first signal his agreement, though.
To invite Taliban or not casts doubts on holding scholars' confab in Kabul
By Muhammad Tahir
ISLAMABAD, Feb. 23 (Xinhua) -- Pakistan and Afghanistan had agreed to hold a conference of the religious scholars in Kabul in March to forge a united front in the fight against attacks on civilians but a controversy on whether to invite or not the Taliban has now cast doubts over its fate.
Pakistani clerics said that a joint organizing committee had agreed in its meeting in Islamabad on Feb. 12 to extend invitation to the Afghan Taliban but a member of the Afghan delegation rejected the idea in remarks he made in his return to Kabul.
Chairman of the Pakistani Scholars Council, Allama Tahir Ashrafi,said that anti-Taliban statement by member of the Afghan clerics council, Aminullah Muzaffary, and his claim that Taliban will not be invited, is violation of the understanding reached in the Islamabad's meeting.
Ashrafi said in Islamabad on Saturday that Pakistani clerics have now decided not to attend the joint conference in Kabul next month as they have strong apprehensions that the forum could be used against the Taliban.
"The anti-Taliban statement by the Afghan member has forced us to boycott the Kabul conference," Ashrafi said. He asked the Afghan scholars to come up with a new agenda that should also focus on the elusive peace process in the war-torn Afghanistan.
Another Pakistani religious scholar and member of the organizing committee, Mufti Abu Hurraira Mohiuddin, said that another group of Pakistani scholars has also sought clarification from the Afghan side about the reported anti-Taliban remarks by an Afghan member.
Mufti Mohiuddin, head of the "Saut-ul-Islam" or Voice of Islam group, said in Karachi that the organizing committee had decided that the Kabul conference will neither be used against nor in favor of any group or individual.
Maulvi Shehzada Shehzad, the spokesman for the Afghan clerics' council, however disputed claims by Pakistani religious leaders and said that Afghan council has formally invited the Taliban, asking the Pakistani scholars to withdraw their boycott decision.
Maulvi Shehzad said in Kabul that Afghan side is committed to respect the decisions taken in the joint organizing committee's meeting in Islamabad on Feb. 12.
Organizing committees of the two countries had previously agreed in their talks in Islamabad that 500 scholars, 250 from each country,will attend the March meeting and that the conference will not be used to support or attack any group.
The Afghan government, which had first proposed the Pak-Afghan religious scholars conference in November, is now struggling to persuade the Pakistani clerics to attend the meeting in Kabul to discuss a joint stand against the attacks on civilians and come up with a united approach against suicide bombings.
The Karzai government has pinned high hopes on the proposed conference as it wants religious backing for a nascent peace process in the war-torn country.
The Afghan government has also planned to hold an international conference of religious scholars after the Pak-Afghan meet, however,it seems that serious differences over the Taliban invitation and the apprehensions by Pakistani scholars that the forum could be used against the Taliban, have now cast doubts over the holding of the Kabul conference.
Despite demands by Pakistani religious leaders to invite the Taliban to the conference, a spokesman of the Afghan Taliban has already rejected the conference branding it as a "conspiracy" by the United States and Western nations against them. The Taliban has urged the Pakistani scholars to boycott the Kabul conference.
Some analysts are of the view that the Taliban appeal has convinced the Pakistani scholars to stay away from the conference.
The Pakistani government had, on three occasions, officially promised to help in organizing the conference as it is also facing the challenge of violent extremism and the most serious suicide attacks that have already killed innocent people.
The Afghan government is likely to ask Pakistan to convince its religious scholars to review their decision to boycott the conference.
NATO in Talks on Scale of Afghan Role After 2014 Deadline
New York Times By THOM SHANKER February 22, 2013
BRUSSELS - NATO defense ministers meeting here on Friday said they had made progress toward planning a military assistance mission in Afghanistan after the alliance’s combat role expires at the end of 2014, with some partner nations already offering to participate.
A draft proposal discussed here for possible NATO operations in Afghanistan after 2014 envisions a force of up to 9,500 American troops and up to 6,000 more from other coalition nations, according to alliance officials, who stressed that no final decisions had been made. Other NATO officials said the combined American and allied force would be smaller, falling in a range of 8,000 to 12,000 troops.
George Little, the Pentagon spokesman, said reports that the United States had told its allies it was considering 8,000 to 12,000 of its own troops were wrong. “A range of 8-12,000 troops was discussed as the possible size of the overall NATO mission, not the U.S. contribution,” Mr. Little said. “The president is still reviewing options and has not made a decision about the size of a possible U.S. presence after 2014.”
In official comments, NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the session included serious discussion on “preparing a new and different NATO-led mission after 2014 to train, advise and assist Afghan Security Forces.”
Mr. Rasmussen added that “many partners have already offered to join us and are working with us to plan the new mission,” but he provided no details.
Officials stressed that troop numbers remain for planning only, and that any enduring NATO military presence in Afghanistan would be possible only through successful negotiations with the Afghan government and contributor nations. That presence would focus on supporting and training Afghan Army and national police forces, as well as on a narrower counterterrorism mission specifically hunting for high-value adversary leaders.
The draft was described by several NATO officials on standard diplomatic rules of anonymity that prohibit identifying them by name or nationality.
But, speaking in broad terms, Mr. Rasmussen made note that a number of nations in the coalition had already pledged to participate in the post-2014 mission.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, attending his final NATO session before retiring from public service, said that he and other defense ministers “did discuss a range of options.” He said that no firm or final numbers existed for the American or coalition contributions, but that the alliance was firm in its commitment to Afghanistan’s long-term stability.
The draft concept for post-2014 Afghanistan envisions a presence of foreign forces operating out of a central headquarters in Kabul but linked to training bases in four sections of the country.
Conventional troops acting as advisers would not be present at the division, brigade or battalion level, but would mentor Afghan security forces at the level of the corps headquarters. Mentoring of Afghan troops at the level of smaller, tactical units in the field would be carried out by Special Operations forces, according to current planning concepts.
The United States currently has about 66,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan. NATO and other coalition nations have about 37,000 troops. President Obama has announced that 34,000 United States troops will be removed by February 2014.
Afghans Protest Iran Executions
By RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan February 23, 2013
Hundreds of people have attended the funerals of 10 men in Takhar Province, in Afghanistan's northeast, who were recently hanged in Iran reportedly on charges of drug smuggling.
RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan reporter in Takhar says the mourners in Kalafgan district of the province marched in protest at the executions, calling on the Afghan government and the United Nations to stop the executions.
Residents of Kalafgan district say they have buried the bodies of 80 people in the last six months who have been executed in Iran.
In recent years, Kabul says many Afghans have been sentenced to death in Iran on drug smuggling charges.
As Obama winds down Afghan war, what’s next for Gitmo?
Obama vowed and failed to transfer Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Now with war supposedly over, legal experts say, Washington loses basis for keeping them there.
Global Post By Jennifer Koons February 22, 2013
WASHINGTON, DC - Shaker Aamer has spent more than a decade imprisoned without charges.
Captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and brought to Guantanamo Bay in 2002, the British resident has come to epitomize for many critics the legal limbo and frustrations of the United States' controversial detainment camp.
Cleared for release by George W. Bush’s administration in 2007 and again by Barack Obama’s in 2009, the now 45-year-old Saudi Arabian-born Aamer nonetheless remains in captivity. Critics say that’s thanks to congressional obstruction and an administration reluctant to sacrifice political capital.
But Obama says America's war in Afghanistan is ending, shifting the fight against Al Qaeda beyond the traditional battlefield. That raises new questions about a gamut of controversial actions Washington commits in the war’s name — from drone bombings to locking up terror suspects, like Aamer, indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay.
"Not just for the Obama administration but Bush as well, the state of war has provided legal cover to do a lot of things, including indefinite detention," said retired Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor for the US Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay.
"Whenever a 'state of war' ends, the legal justification has to end as well. It's either going to require the creation of a new justification or for the administration to take some different actions."
During last week’s State of the Union speech, Obama declared: "After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home."
The president went on to signal a shift in the larger war on terror against an enemy that’s now "a shadow of its former self," but that is cast across broad swathes of land.
"Different Al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged — from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving. But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations," the president said.
"Instead, we will need to help countries like Yemen, Libya and Somalia provide for their own security, and help allies who take the fight to terrorists, as we have in Mali. And, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans."
But legal experts believe this new phase of war should require a new legal framework.
"Congress has authorized a limited conflict against those responsible for 9/11 and those that aided or harbored them," said David Glazier, an international law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "This should be Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban; it is not a blank check for the president to continually add other 'associated forces' to the mix to prolong the conflict."
Many experts like Glazier question the ongoing applicability of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was enacted a week after 9/11 and has served as the primary legal basis for the US military's response to the attacks.
According to the resolution, the AUMF authorizes the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
But does the end of combat operations in Afghanistan and a weakened terrorist network blunt that authority?
"In past wars, Congress specifically expanded statutory authority to include additional groups within the scope of hostilities — it thus declared war five separate times in WWII, for example, against Japan, Germany, Italy, Romania and Bulgaria. No one seemed to think that the president could simply include other enemies within the existing conflict just because they were allied with current foes," Glazier said.
"So I think the first question becomes one of US domestic law — are we still in fact engaged in an ongoing conflict against an adversary that Congress has authorized hostilities against?"
So far, the Obama administration has cited the AUMF as justification for strikes against alleged terrorists in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere in North Africa. Although, the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, remains unclear.
Even Chuck Hagel, Obama’s pick for defense secretary, has raised doubts.
"My understanding is that at this time, there is no credible evidence that AQIM is a direct threat to the US homeland,” Hagel said at his Senate confirmation hearing.
In 2004, a plurality of the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that enemy combatants — both in the United States and at Guantanamo Bay — must be given the ability to challenge their detention. So far, however, the court has declined to address the length of detention issue, which analysts say suggests it’s a political question that can only be resolved by Congress and the president.
"The Hamdi decision implied that US detention authority would persist as long as there was active combat in Afghanistan, but doesn't conclusively say that it must end at that point," Glazier said.
The ambiguity will almost certainly spark fresh legal challenges.
"The end of combat operations will give strong legal arguments that the authority to hold people also ends," said Thomas Wilner, a partner with Shearman & Sterling who represented Guantanamo detainees in the Rasul v. Bush and Boumediene v. Bush cases before the high court.
What is less ambiguous, at least according to legal scholars, is what should happen to those members of the Taliban detained by the United States.
"Any authority to detain Taliban personnel, other than those actually facing US criminal charges, absolutely ends with the end of a US combat role," Glazier said.
But legal imperatives and political reality rarely track.
"It will require the end of the war against terrorism. And, as Colin Powell has pointed out, the US has created a 'military-industrial-terrorism complex,'" said retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Powell. "It will be very difficult to put that creation back in its cage."
Last week, Obama announced plans to halve the number of US soldiers deployed in Afghanistan over the year, part of Washington's goal to pull out almost all its troops by the end of 2014. The drawdown will occur in the shadow of the 2014 midterm elections, which could undermine what little interest exists to take action on a case that offers no political payoff.
"Soon you're going to have lawmakers, particularly on the House side where the more hard-core conservatives tend to be located — who will be coming up on re-election or someone will be trying to unseat them," Davis said. "No one is going to win saying 'I got the detainees out of Guantanamo,' so there's no incentive politically to do that."
More than 150 detainees remain in Guantanamo. Eighty-six have been cleared for transfer or release, and 46 are being held indefinitely. The military is currently prosecuting seven detainees before military commissions and plans to prosecute 24 others. Three detainees are serving sentences.
Obama has taken criticism for failing to fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo. The White House has said it’s not for a lack of trying.
Congress has continually blocked the release of the detainees approved for transfer or release, passing legislation preventing federal money from being used to bring prisoners to the United States.
"Congress has put the administration in a box canyon. It lacks the freedom of movement that it needs to get rid of the long-term detainees," said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School. "Congress has rendered it impossible to do anything with them."
"The drawdown of our personnel in Afghanistan is not going to change that unless Congress changes that or the president violates the legislative framework or the Supreme Court of the United States does something to break the gridlock," Fidell added.
In January, the president signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which mandates military custody for Al Qaeda-linked terror suspects, despite threatening to veto it over that and other provisions related to the prison camp.
Obama has blamed the legislative branch for preventing him from closing Guantanamo.
"There are some things that we haven't gotten done. I still want to close Guantanamo, we haven't been able to get that through Congress," Obama said during an appearance on Comedy Central's "Daily Show" with host Jon Stewart in October.
But critics say the president's continuing failure to take the lead is to blame.
"I have not seen in him a willingness to make this an issue that he's going to sell in the local elections," said Wilner, of Shearman & Sterling. "I think he truly feels Guantanamo is a joke and that it's a bad thing for the US, but he's unwilling to put prestige behind it. And there's always something more important. I think somebody needs to push him on that. Hopefully as his legacy becomes more important to him, he'll do it."
Signaling a possible move in that direction was an administration-approved speech by Jeh Johnson, former general counsel for the Defense Department, in the fall.
“In its 12th year, we must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the ‘new normal,’” Johnson said in a speech at the Oxford Union in November.
"I do believe that on the present course, there will come a tipping point — a tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda and its affiliates have been killed or captured, and the group is no longer able to attempt or launch a strategic attack against the United States, such that Al Qaeda as we know it, the organization that our Congress authorized the military to pursue in 2001, has been effectively destroyed."
Only Afghan parliament can decide on US troops immunity
By Sayed Jawad - 23 Feb 2013, 9:06 pm Khaama Press
Leader of the National Front — main political opposition coalition of the Afghan government opposed with the grand assembly (Loya Jirga) to discuss US troops immunity in Afghanistan.
Ahmad Zia on Saturday said organizing grand assembly to decide over US troops immunity in the presence of Afghan parliament is against the Afghan constitution.
However Afghan president Hamid Karzai said US troops immunity will be decided by Afghan tribal elders during a national grand assembly.
Karzai said, a decision on immunity for U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan after the 2014 planned withdrawal will be made by the end of the year.
The Afghan government rejected an initial U.S. proposal regarding the question of immunity and a second round of negotiations will take place this year in Kabul, he said.
This comes as the U.S. and its NATO allies revealed Friday they may keep as many as 12,000 troops in Afghanistan after the combat mission ends next year, largely American forces tasked with hunting down remnants of al-Qaida and helping Afghan forces with their own security.
However the Obama administration has not said how many troops or diplomats it intends to keep in Afghanistan after 2014; it is in the early stages of negotiating a bilateral security agreement with Kabul that would set the legal parameters.
There currently are 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, down from a 2010 peak of 100,000.
NATO Chief Says No Decision On Afghan, Foreign Forces
RFE/RL February 22, 2013
BRUSSELS - NATO says no decision has been made so far on the future size of the domestic and foreign forces in Afghanistan after the alliance's withdrawal in 2014.
Speaking at the end of a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Afghan forces kept growing in numbers and quality, but the final size was an issue to be solved at some point in the future.
"Let me stress two points: Firstly, no concrete decision has been made as regards the future size of the Afghan security forces, and secondly, there have been no new requests as regards funding," he said.
"This is an issue that will be solved down the road. "
Rasmussen spoke in response to media reports on February 21 that quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying that NATO wanted Afghan forces at a peak level of 352,000 until 2018 -- a move that could cost NATO billions more.
The secretary-general reiterated that NATO's training mission after 2014 will be much smaller, without giving numbers.
"Today we have reinforced our commitment on the way forward for our new mission to train, advise, and assist the Afghan security forces after 2014," he said. "This will be a different mission from ISAF and will be significantly smaller in size."
Up To 12,000 Foreign Troops
The United States says the alliance has been discussing keeping a NATO force of 8,000-12,000 in Afghanistan, in a first indication of the possible size of the international presence in the country after 2014.
Pentagon spokesman George Little told reporters in Brussels, "A range of 8,000-12,000 troops was discussed as the possible size of the overall NATO mission, not the U.S. contribution."
Little was responding to a statement attributed to German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere that the U.S. contribution alone would amount to up to 12,000 troops.
Little added that U.S. President Barack Obama had not decided how many U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan after 2014.
Outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the force would be a combined NATO contingent, and would not consist of U.S. troops only.
Panetta told reporters that the post-2014 international force will have a presence across the country.
"Today we asked NATO to begin planning for a range of options on the post-2014 posture that would provide for a effective regional presence not only in Kabul but at fixed sites in the north, the south, the east, and the west," Panetta said.
Panetta also detailed the U.S. troop withdrawal program.
He said the current contingent of just over 60,000 troops will be largely maintained during the upcoming Afghan fighting season and then reduced to about 50,000 by November, and 32,000 by February 2014.
Obama last month announced that 34,000 soldiers would be brought home within 12 months.
With reporting by AP, Reuters, dpa, and AFP
Roadside bomb wounds 3 police in northern Afghan town
KUNDUZ, Afghanistan, Feb. 23 (Xinhua) -- A roadside bomb struck police van in Kunduz province 250 km north of Kabul on Saturday, wounding three police personnel, provincial police chief Mohammad Khalil Andarabai said.
"A mine planted by anti-government militants struck a police vehicle at around 01:30 p.m. today injuring three policemen," Andarabi said to Xinhua.
The incident, he added took place on the road leading to Shir Khan Bandar border town.
Meantime, Zabihullah Mujahid who claims to speak for the Taliban outfit in talks with media via telephone from unknown location claimed of responsibility, saying eight police were killed in the blast, a claim rejected by the police official as groundless.
Talk of peace between Pakistani government, Taliban angers victims of violence
Associated Press Saturday, February 23, 2013
PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Hazratullah Khan, who lost his right leg below the knee in a car bombing, answers immediately when asked whether the Pakistani government should hold peace talks with Taliban leaders responsible for attacks like the one that maimed him.
“Hang them alive,” said the 14-year-old, who survived the explosion on his way home from school. “Slice the flesh off their bodies and cut them into pieces. That’s what they have been doing to us.”
Khan, who is from the Khyber tribal region, pondered his future recently at a physical rehabilitation center in Peshawar.
“What was my crime that they made me disabled for the rest of my life?” he asked as he touched his severed limb.
In recent weeks, the Pakistani government and Taliban forces fighting in northwestern tribal areas have expressed an interest in peace talks to end the years-long conflict. An estimated 30,000 civilians and 4,000 soldiers have died in terrorist attacks in Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001 — many at the hands of the Pakistani Taliban.
To many victims of Taliban violence, the idea of negotiating with people responsible for so much human pain is abhorrent. Their voices, however, are rarely heard in Pakistan, a country where people have long been conflicted about whether the Taliban are enemies bent on destroying the state or fellow Muslims who should be welcomed back into the fold after years of fighting.
The Associated Press spoke with victims of terrorist attacks in Peshawar, Lahore, Karachi, Quetta and the tribal areas and their families to find out how they felt about negotiating peace with the Taliban.
Khan’s classmate, Fatimeen Afridi, who was also injured in the same bombing in Khyber, said he would be happy to see negotiations with the militants — but only after those who maimed him were punished. Afridi’s left leg was amputated below the knee, shattering his dream of becoming a fast bowler on Pakistan’s cricket team.
“If I find them, I will throw them in a burning clay oven,” he said.
The push for peace talks gained momentum in December when the leader of the Pakistani Taliban offered to negotiate. The government responded positively, and even hinted that the militants would not need to lay down their weapons before talks could begin. That would be a reversal of the government’s long-held position that any talks be preceded by a ceasefire.
So far, there have been few concrete developments, and it’s unclear whether Pakistan’s powerful military supports negotiations.
Skeptics doubt the militants truly want peace and point to past agreements with the Taliban that fell apart after giving militants time to regroup. Others say negotiations are the only option since numerous military operations against the Taliban have failed.
The biggest question — especially for many of the Taliban’s victims — is whether the Taliban will have to pay any price for the people they are believed to have killed and wounded. The government hasn’t said whether it would offer the Taliban amnesty for past offenses.
Many of the victims feel forgotten, saying no one has asked their opinion about holding peace talks. They have to fight for what little health care they can obtain, and there’s almost no assistance for dealing with psychological trauma caused by the attacks.
Dr. Mahboob-ur-Rehman runs a private medical complex in Peshawar, a large facility that houses a prosthetic workshop and a therapy school, where both Khan and Afridi are being treated. Rehman said the Pakistani army has a state-of-the-art facility to treat its soldiers while there is little help for civilians. He estimated that roughly 10,000 civilians have been permanently disabled after losing limbs in Pakistani Taliban attacks.
In the southern city of Karachi, 12-year-old Mehzar Fatima was shot in the back when a gunman killed her father, a Shiite Muslim. The sectarian groups often accused of carrying out such attacks are closely aligned with the Pakistani Taliban. The gunshot left her unable to move her legs and feet and she fears she might never use them again.
Her mother, Kishwar Fatima, said she’s being pressured to leave the hospital where the girl is being treated because there’s no government assistance to help pay her bills.
Those wounded in the violence feel further victimized because many Pakistanis don’t even agree on who is to blame for their suffering.
Despite the huge loss of life and property, the views of many Pakistanis are influenced by right-wing, anti-American propaganda that spawns conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks. Fellow Muslims could never commit acts of violence against their own people, they say, so someone else must be to blame. Some theories suggest U.S. and Indian intelligence agencies support the Taliban and other militant groups to destabilize Pakistan.
Some people who support the militants think the Taliban are better than many of Pakistan’s corrupt politicians who have failed to deliver good governance. Many Pakistanis also say the militant problems in the tribal areas are a result of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and when the U.S. leaves, the Pakistani Taliban will also stop fighting.
Even some of the victims aren’t sure who is to blame.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for a Feb. 2 suicide attack that killed 23 people in the northwestern city of Lakki Marwat. But Mohammad Shafi, whose 24-year-old son was among nine soldiers killed in the explosion, isn’t convinced the attackers were members of the Taliban. He says Muslims would never hurt a fellow Muslim.
Instead, Shafi thinks his son — a boxer who never lost a fight before he was shot seven times during the attack on an army post — was killed by Hindu agents that archrival India sent, with U.S. assistance, to destabilize Pakistan. He said Pakistan should sever ties with the U.S. to abolish terrorism.
“If my son was killed by infidels, he has been martyred and will go to heaven,” he said.
Confusion over who is responsible for the deadly violence also has some victims wondering if the Pakistani government makes peace with the Taliban, will it also make peace with other militant groups.
Will the government, for instance, hold talks with Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a group linked to al-Qaida that is accused of killing more than 175 Shiite Muslims during the past two months in the southwestern city of Quetta?
Ghazanfar Ali lost his 24-year-old son in one of these attacks on Jan. 10 in Quetta. Another of his sons survived the same attack after three major surgeries.
Ali broke down in tears as he recalled sifting through rubble and identifying his son’s body by the ring he had on his finger because his head and face were wounded beyond recognition.
“There can’t be peace with the Taliban,” he said. “They slaughter a son in front of his father and then chant ‘God is great!’”
__
Associated Press writers Riaz Khan and Rasool Dawar in Peshawar; Zaheer Babar in Lahore; Abdul Sattar in Quetta; and Adil Jawad in Karachi, Pakistan contributed to this report.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com